• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on   Omaha Steaks  .

NIL now ruled by Title IX

This will be terribly disruptive, once again. Judges will decide the matter. I don't think you get the money out of the system now. Maybe it will accelerate the separation of athletic departments from the universities. Separate corporations contracting with the universities? Private equity ownerships?
 

Pleae read the Yahoo article as it explains that NIL money and other booster money is bound by Title IX according to the Dept of Ed opinion:

OCR further stressed that even when NIL payments are made by third parties, such as booster clubs or collectives, schools remain responsible for ensuring that these funds do not create sex-based disparities.

“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.”
The opening paragraph tells you it's not something they can enforce. They issue guidance, as in this is what we want to see, not what they can legally do.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance regarding college athlete name, image and likeness, putting the onus on schools to ensure their male and female athletes receive proportionate NIL opportunities and resources—regardless of whether the funding comes from external sources.
 
This will be terribly disruptive, once again. Judges will decide the matter. I don't think you get the money out of the system now. Maybe it will accelerate the separation of athletic departments from the universities. Separate corporations contracting with the universities? Private equity ownerships?
Othing more tgan a parting shot. It's guidance only, not enforcement,and anyone wanting to enforce it will be gone in a week.
 

The opening paragraph tells you it's not something they can enforce. They issue guidance, as in this is what we want to see, not what they can legally do.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance regarding college athlete name, image and likeness, putting the onus on schools to ensure their male and female athletes receive proportionate NIL opportunities and resources—regardless of whether the funding comes from external sources.
Right, this is their interpretation of the law as guidance, and not an enforcement action. But it certainly is a reasonable reading, and one that a court could come to in the myriad of cases that arise once NIL monies are distributed at the university’s directions. The reasoning would also apply to the splitting of revenue sharing dollars among athletes. This is one of the reasons why a Congressional fix is the only way to solve this and related pay for play issues. Congress may be a mess, but this may be one area where they can get to yes.
 
Right, this is their interpretation of the law as guidance, and not an enforcement action. But it certainly is a reasonable reading, and one that a court could come to in the myriad of cases that arise once NIL monies are distributed at the university’s directions. The reasoning would also apply to the splitting of revenue sharing dollars among athletes. This is one of the reasons why a Congressional fix is the only way to solve this and related pay for play issues. Congress may be a mess, but this may be one area where they can get to yes.
I can see this spilling over into every industry, especially entertainment.
Value, what value?
 
The opening paragraph tells you it's not something they can enforce. They issue guidance, as in this is what we want to see, not what they can legally do.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance regarding college athlete name, image and likeness, putting the onus on schools to ensure their male and female athletes receive proportionate NIL opportunities and resources—regardless of whether the funding comes from external sources.
Correct.

Also, someone will have to file a Title IX complaint re NIL or rev share before that issue gets litigated.

I do think Title IX will play a part in revenue sharing and I was surprised schools had already drafted rev share agreements at this point without fully knowing the potential Title IX implications.

Title IX will also come into play when the schools use any NIL rights of the student athletes, whether exclusively or non- exclusively...IMO.
 


Correct.

Also, someone will have to file a Title IX complaint re NIL or rev share before that issue gets litigated.

I do think Title IX will play a part in revenue sharing and I was surprised schools had already drafted rev share agreements at this point without fully knowing the potential Title IX implications.

Title IX will also come into play when the schools use any NIL rights of the student athletes, whether exclusively or non- exclusively...IMO.
I think they're expanding things, not following things.
 
Pleae read the Yahoo article as it explains that NIL money and other booster money is bound by Title IX according to the Dept of Ed opinion:

OCR further stressed that even when NIL payments are made by third parties, such as booster clubs or collectives, schools remain responsible for ensuring that these funds do not create sex-based disparities.

“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.”
The department of education does not pass law or make legal determinations. If this is attempted to be enforced, money will simply be rerouted through other means. No one is paying millions to support Women’s sports in a similar manner to men’s.
 
As the article describes, this issue is already before a judge. The Dept of Ed guidance will aid the plaintiffs in their suit. If the judge rules in their favor, the appeals will begin. Schools are going to have to weigh potential suits if the initial opinion goes against Univ of Oregon.
 
Right, this is their interpretation of the law as guidance, and not an enforcement action. But it certainly is a reasonable reading, and one that a court could come to in the myriad of cases that arise once NIL monies are distributed at the university’s directions. The reasoning would also apply to the splitting of revenue sharing dollars among athletes. This is one of the reasons why a Congressional fix is the only way to solve this and related pay for play issues. Congress may be a mess, but this may be one area where they can get to yes.
I think in some cases people may think the revenue sharing is all for the football team since many discussions involve them. But the revenue sharing is for all athletes including women. Each sport where the university shares revenues will get a percentage of the 22% or 20.5 million. Also the revenue sharing can be considered NIL money because that's what started all of this, but we're still just talking money from the university. Any player that makes a separate NIL deal with 1890 or some business is not part of any revenue sharing deal, and that money has to be split with anyone else.

At least that's my understanding of how it all works.
 

As the article describes, this issue is already before a judge. The Dept of Ed guidance will aid the plaintiffs in their suit. If the judge rules in their favor, the appeals will begin. Schools are going to have to weigh potential suits if the initial opinion goes against Univ of Oregon.
That may be true today, but it may not be true next Tuesday. The last paragraph of the article.

The OCR fact sheet constitutes one of the final acts of the Department of Education’s OCR under President Joe Biden. As such, this guidance could soon be amended or reversed under President-elect Donald Trump.

Also the Oregon lawsuit is from 2023, and doesn't have anything to do with the revenue sharing matter currently before the courts. That lawsuit is 26 women claiming the collectives are really part of the university, even though they aren't, and as such money going to the collectives should be shared with all sports, men's and women's equally. It seems to me that one is going to be a hard sell. And should be even harder now that revenue sharing is coming.
 

As the article describes, this issue is already before a judge. The Dept of Ed guidance will aid the plaintiffs in their suit. If the judge rules in their favor, the appeals will begin. Schools are going to have to weigh potential suits if the initial opinion goes against Univ of Oregon.
This is why I doubt we see the format remaining the same. If I'm an investor, which is what someone who donates is, I'm not paying the same for things that return in a drastically different manner. And I'm also not spending my resources in something I have no interest in. The athletes who perform at a higher level and bring revenue at a higher level will expect higher compensation, and all the whining in the world about gender equity isn't going to change that. It hasn't changed it in professional sports, and that is essentially what we are becoming with NIL. There is no way Title IX is a factor, because the athletes will simply form their own league, and college sports will become little more than intramural.
 

GET TICKETS



Back
Top