https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-title-ix-6133381ab633182dd155a6338c781665
Many questions surround how revenue sharing will work. The one that never seems to me to be addressed is “how will Title IX affect where the money goes?“ For years, I have heard the question brushed off: it doesn’t really apply. It doesn’t really matter. It won’t be a big deal.
I don’t claim to understand the fine details of Title IX. But I understand something about litigation. I’ve seen what has happened the last 40 years. Regardless of your position on any of this, or what you think should happen, human nature is a constant. People always want more.
The old NCAA system seems built on the basis of “We are all part of this school, sports are primarily part of the school experience, like debate societies or choral groups or student government.” Money was always something of an issue; stuff has to be paid for, but it was not “a revenue stream“ as much as it was a way to cover it’s own costs. Obviously, that changed over time, but that was the foundation.
College sports became more popular . People would pay more to go to a football game, they would listen in the radio and buy papers and magazines to read about it. Then came TV, and the internet. More money. And then comes Title IX. Pay for the women to have athletic experience opportunities equivalent to the guys, colleges. Make it work.
T9 kind of fits in the one for all, all for one college approach. Football may generate lots of cash, though not everywhere, but the rest of the sports? Negative net income, including most women’s programs everywhere (a few exceptions).
But the money keeps growing. And the people generating the biggest part of it are football players. Shouldn’t they get a share? It’s the capitalist way, they’re the ones getting beat up for a good TV show. The schools get all that money, they can’t pay people. So they sink a lot of it into facilities, staff, coaches salaries. Nature abhors a vacuum. It has to go somewhere. And some goes to women’s sports. Way more than they generate. But “college.“
There has been wrangling over how much women get, and under what circumstances. Far as I can tell, it has never been dependent on what they generate. It’s hard to square the capitalist approach, where the producers of income get a fair share of the cash they generate, with the everyone gets fed from the same bowl in this academic community approach.
i guess we will see. But down deep I feel like some enterprising lawyers are preparing for the new financial arrangement with every expectation of Litigation Wave 2, meant to correct any perceived shortfall in amounts paid to the women.
if, say, UGA football generates 200 million a year, I can see why players have a fair argument for, say, 22% of that. But track athletes? Golfers? Sure, let UGA pay them…from their own cut. And what about title IX? Equivalent money?
i don’t know the right answer. But I doubt it’s “sure, the girls will just agree they generate essentially Zero or less and be happy with less.” I could be wrong.
One thing you wrote is 100% correct, “I could be wrong”.
Some law firm will jump on this and convince the ladies they deserve
more and back in court this will be or some massive settlement.
They should get something. They do represent the University, but the settlement will be much more than you can justify.
They always are.
This could be the death knell for “amateur” CFB as we know it, at least at the D1 level.
Bates College in Maine has competed in intercollegiate football for over 150 years. It fields 14 men’s varsity sports and 15 women’s varsity sports. That is what amateur college sports looks like. No college in FCS has looked like Bates in your or my lifetimes.
“As we know it.” I think you missed my point but I’ll admit I was a little vague.
What I think will happen is profitable D1 football programs will separate themselves from the universities in order to avoid wealth sharing
Title IX has been the Georgia football fan’s favorite complaint for years. As someone who remembers being a UGA student before UGA started implementing it, I have seen the improvement in how women students college experience changed for the better after Title IX.
The frigging proposal hasn’t even been approved by the district Judge yet and complaining about volleyball players getting money has started.
The Department of Education has the responsibility of publishing regulations applying Title IX, and for 52 years it has. It has never interpreted that college athletics programs spend equal dollars on men’s sports and women’s sports. It has interpreted the law as requiring equal opportunity for women students. We do not know yet what changes to the regulations will result from direct payments. And no, you do not know at this time. You just have speculation based upon your attitude about Title IX and players getting paid and lawyers.
Anyway, so what if all UGA athletes get the same? A softball full scholarship has the same value as a football full scholarship and UGA has thrived. If Title IX prevents UGA from allocating all $20 million to football and men’s basketball then guess what, it prevents our opponents, too. Things will work out.
I have a vested interest but I would propose that UGA softball is what college athletic a is all about….for now. Go Dawgs!
perhaps you misunderstood my point. I am not complaining about volleyball players getting the same money as football players, nor advocating for a return to the dark days of women’s sports. Am I speculating about what comes next? Of course I am.
i am aware the strict rules of title IX don’t require a dollar for dollar expenditure, but I can also do math. More money poured into football kind of ups the ante for the other side of the ledger, right? Where is that coming from? Becuse it isn’t coming from women’s teams. The tone of your response seems a bit peeved that anyone would be concerned or even wonder about that. And if you think there won’t be demands, issues, arguments about it, you have more faith in human nature than I do.
I think women’s sports are good for the participants many of the same reason men’s sports are. So nobody is advocating or suggesting we get rid of them. But I am curious how the athletes who generate the vast majority of the cash now in the pot, who are finally forcing the schools who kept it all and used it to share it with them, are going to feel about it. That applies to all non revenue sports, not just women’s sports. If wondering about that annoys you, my apologies.