Title IX strikes again

[UKnCincy]

The article I read pertained to revenue sharing, not NIL. In fact, it specified that it was not addressing monies from third-parties, but revenue sharing paid directly to players from the school.

I’ve read the actual memo. It’s specific to NIL.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ocr-factsheet-benefits-student-athletes

 

[UKnCincy]

I understand how the law works. Its a sh1t law to begin with because it punishes success by forcing quotas. Its an early dei initiative that needs scrapped with the rest of the nonsense.

Students should not be negatively impacted on any level, whether it be scholarship, nil or otherwise, because viewers or attendees prefer watching one sport or athlete over another.

The entire thing, including mindset, needs razed to the ground.

No one says you have to like Title IX. But if you understand the law, then you should neither be surprised or outraged by this most recent guidance. It’s pretty much what you’d expect given how Title IX has been handled over the past 45 years or so.

It essentially says that if a school is going to allocate some budget towards paying student athletes for use of their NIL (such as using athletes in university commercials), then those licensing dollars need to be split proportionally across men and women athletes in aggregate.

It’s not that shocking that the DOE would take that stance, so there’s really no reason for people to view this as outrageous. Folks don’t have to agree it with it, but it’s easy to see how the DOE would view this approach as being consistent with the law.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Most people understand that there is nothing discriminatory about sharing revenues on a foundation premised on the percentage a sport contributes to the revenues. Such payments are not premised upon discriminatory factors. This is a political move meant to be a campaign issue in the mid-terms if Trump rightfully determines there is nothing discriminatory. The Dems are hoping for bad optics.

The memo is meant to scare. It deals, in application, to the revenue sharing agreement and not expressly with collectives and other third party payor systems, other than to attempt to scare the institutions into “what ifs.”

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Most people understand that there is nothing discriminatory about sharing revenues on a foundation premised on the percentage a sport contributes to the revenues. Such payments are not premised upon discriminatory factors. This is a political move meant to be a campaign issue in the mid-terms if Trump rightfully determines there is nothing discriminatory. The Dems are hoping for bad optics.

The memo is meant to scare. It deals, in application, to the revenue sharing agreement and not expressly with collectives and other third party payor systems, other than to attempt to scare the institutions into “what ifs.”

Its 100% a political issue. Thats why they issued the guidance on the way out the door.

The entire framework of this law just needs reworked. Success should never be punished and quotas should never exist. Get rid of it all.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Its 100% a political issue. Thats why they issued the guidance on the way out the door.

The entire framework of this law just needs reworked. Success should never be punished and quotas should never exist. Get rid of it all.

It appears that the problem is in the regulatory emphases, rather than the statute. It’s a real problem with the federal government. Legislation is passed that is broad and the details are left to the designs of a federal agency, permitting both parties to cry foul when the initiatives of the agency are suspect or rejected by the public.