NIL What If Title 9 Question

[Wally86]

Let’s say Alabama goes non-scholarship in football because the NIL collective pays all players more than room board and tuition. Based on less Mens scholarships can Alabama drop an equivalent number of Womens scholarships? That would allow the AD to spend even more money on football. Talk about unintended consequences. As stupid as NIL is being implemented can anyone say it won’t happen?

 

[Cyclad]

Let’s say Alabama goes non-scholarship in football because the NIL collective pays all players more than room board and tuition. Based on less Mens scholarships can Alabama drop an equivalent number of Womens scholarships? That would allow the AD to spend even more money on football. Talk about unintended consequences. As stupid as NIL is being implemented can anyone say it won’t happen?

I cannot say that impossible.
However, I think it might be far more likely that the “excess money” would be used to buy players in other sports, including women’s sports. Also a good way to expand rosters beyond the current limits. Since people want to play doubt that makes too much difference, except possibly in some of the Olympic type sports. For example in wrestling. Just pay people as walk ons.

 

[SCNCY]

My basic understanding of Title 9 is that the AD's budget needs to be split equally among men and women's sports. NIL are private deals that fall outside of Title 9, and the federal regulations of the AD.

So in your scenario, the AD could save some money by not having to pay for football scholarships because everyone would be paying their own way via their NIL money. But they couldn't take money away from women's teams unless they wanted to spend less on men's teams in order to balance out the funding.

 

[BCClone]

I cannot say that impossible.
However, I think it might be far more likely that the “excess money” would be used to buy players in other sports, including women’s sports. Also a good way to expand rosters beyond the current limits. Since people want to play doubt that makes too much difference, except possibly in some of the Olympic type sports. For example in wrestling. Just pay people as walk ons.

The schools can't pay the athletes.

 

[BCClone]

My basic understanding of Title 9 is that the AD's budget needs to be split equally among men and women's sports. NIL are private deals that fall outside of Title 9, and the federal regulations of the AD.

So in your scenario, the AD could save some money by not having to pay for football scholarships because everyone would be paying their own way via their NIL money. But they couldn't take money away from women's teams unless they wanted to spend less on men's teams in order to balance out the funding.

What he is saying is you have 85 scholarships, (lets say they average 30k) you now have 2.55MM that is open to spend on the FB team in other ways. It is still the same amount spent on FB, you just aren't using it for scholarships but for other purposes.

EDIT: I reread and now remember comments about dropping sports. The basis of title 9 is providing the same opportunities for sports through financial assistance, aka scholarships. So, if a school dropped football schollies and went all NIL money, they could drop some women sports and then spend that on football also. If not all scholarships, they could just drop say 20 of the football ones and all of a sudden womens swimming would be on the chopping block (probably one of the most expensive due to the need of a pool.) So it could have a huge effect.

 

[GoldCy]

Let’s say Alabama goes non-scholarship in football because the NIL collective pays all players more than room board and tuition. Based on less Mens scholarships can Alabama drop an equivalent number of Womens scholarships? That would allow the AD to spend even more money on football. Talk about unintended consequences. As stupid as NIL is being implemented can anyone say it won’t happen?

I believe the law is "equal opportunity".
It morphed to be tied to $$. If the school is promoting NIL deals like ou, let's look for the to be forced to offer those deals to woman as well.

 

[FOREVERTRUE]

I believe the law is "equal opportunity".
It morphed to be tied to $$. If the school is promoting NIL deals like ou, let's look for the to be forced to offer those deals to woman as well.

Technically the school isn't the one offering the NIL. They are just helping to arrange it for the athletes.

edit: they are getting the athletes in touch with the people providing not necessarily arranging it.

 

[isutrevman]

The schools can't pay the athletes.

And if they could, they'd have to spend the same amount on male and female athletes.

 

[isucy86]

In the Alabama example, I could see where Title IX might come into play. The current NIL format requires that collectives or agents are separate from the school and athletic department.

So if all 85 players on Alabama's roster have NIL deals that cover their full cost of attendance, is the coaching staff indirectly determining how the NIL collective money is spent? Afterall, the NIL collective is ONLY giving money to guys Nick Saben puts on his roster. It may be a stretch, but there are law firms that specialize in Title IX cases. I am sure a few will see dollar signs and be willing to litigate.

This is where the NCAA or Sport Governing bodies could step in. They could create regulations that prevent a school from padding their roster like people have speculated Arkansas basketball is doing with NIL $. College basketball/football could add rules like:

• Eliminate Walk-ons (I realize that is drastic)
• Only scholarship athletes can eat at training table
• Make walk-on ineligible for off-season skill training with the coaching staff or weight room. For example, walk-ons basketball players can only practice/lift with Athletic Department staff from October 1 to last game.
• Don't allow walk-ons to play/travel to away games.

I am sure coaches/AD's could come up with restrictions to make "not-being" a scholarship athlete prohibitive from a training/practice/competition standpoint.

 

[BoxsterCy]

My basic understanding of Title 9 is that the AD's budget needs to be split equally among men and women's sports. NIL are private deals that fall outside of Title 9, and the federal regulations of the AD.

So in your scenario, the AD could save some money by not having to pay for football scholarships because everyone would be paying their own way via their NIL money. But they couldn't take money away from women's teams unless they wanted to spend less on men's teams in order to balance out the funding.

There is no requirement for equal spending. Spending comes into play only in scholarship support which is the usual basis to determine the equal opportunities for participation. Supporting those scholarships means the school has to obviously spend something beyond for coaches and facilities but the spending is not 50/50 or even close to that. And 50/50 isn't required even for scholarships. At ISU the ratio of woman undergrads to men is currently 44/56, so that's the most common measuring stick for your scholarship distribution and "equal opportunity for participation".

Thing is most school are not in full compliance but no federal funds have ever been withheld, at least to my knowledge. I think schools get the benefit of the doubt since most are doing a good faith effort to meet Tile IX or at least look like they are.

 

[cymonw1980]

And if they could, they'd have to spend the same amount on male and female athletes.

I think if the schools start to pay athletes (and I think it's when not if) the schools will make them employees. I don't know if this will be all sports or just revenue sports... But at that point, I don't think it will be equal pay. I believe it will be more like the rest of the employees at the school... you will be paid to do a job. If you are the starting QB you will likely be paid more than if you are the back up TE. Just like the Football coach makes more than the basketball coaches, etc.

We will see... I think there's a long way to go before we get there.

 

[Mr Janny]

I wouldn't be too worried about this until high profile players start walking on. That hasn't happened yet, nor is there any indication that it's going to start happening. Until that starts happening in large numbers, this worry falls distinctly into the "meh" category.

 

[SCNCY]

I wouldn't be too worried about this until high profile players start walking on. That hasn't happened yet, nor is there any indication that it's going to start happening. Until that starts happening in large numbers, this worry falls distinctly into the "meh" category.

One thing that will be interesting, to your point; one of the things that differentiate scholarship athletes and walk-ons are the services they receive throughout the year. Services being meals, medical, etc. Does the AD then begin charging walk-ons for these same services to an NIL athlete to receive the same benefits as a scholarship athlete because the NIL money is able to support it? Benefit to the program would essentially be more scholarship athletes without using scholarships.

 

[Wally86]

I wouldn't be too worried about this until high profile players start walking on. That hasn't happened yet, nor is there any indication that it's going to start happening. Until that starts happening in large numbers, this worry falls distinctly into the "meh" category.

The question isn’t from the expectation it will happen. It’s more to point out how effed up the current situation is and that it can and will get worse.

 

[GoldCy]

Technically the school isn't the one offering the NIL. They are just helping to arrange it for the athletes.

edit: they are getting the athletes in touch with the people providing not necessarily arranging it.

I agree, but it is common knowledge it is a benefit not offered as routinely to woman.
Fact is lawyers don't need much/any reason to sue.

 

[Cyclad]

I agree, but it is common knowledge it is a benefit not offered as routinely to woman.
Fact is lawyers don't need much/any reason to sue.

Two comments. Preface - I am not a lawyer

1- Title 9. No offense to anybody, but does anybody know what it actually says? I thought it boiled down to the number of athletes. That the number of male and female athletes must represent the makeup of the student body. Hence some schools with huge womens rowing team, to balance numbers. Those athletes should have equal access to scholarship benefits.

2 - NIL out of my league, but I think the way this is supposed to work is you are allowed to benefit from your name, imagine and likeness. This opportunity would seem to vary by individual. Not every bodies NIL is of equal market value. As long as women have equal opportunity to participate, I would think there would be no title 9 implications. Given the reality of the situation the highest opportunity people might be football and MBB players. But, Ashley Joens probably has greater opportunity than the mens cross country team.

Help me understand if I am wrong.

 

[mred]

Two comments. Preface - I am not a lawyer

1- Title 9. No offense to anybody, but does anybody know what it actually says? I thought it boiled down to the number of athletes.

Title IX actually says nothing about athletics at all.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

It goes on to mention exclusions (military academies, traditionally single-sex institutions, etc) but the application of Title IX to athletics is separate from Title IX itself.

This is a good resource explaining how the government interprets Title IX with respect to athletic programs:

Equal Opportunity In Intercollegiate Athletics: RequirementsUnder Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

This policy interpretation examines the law requiring that athletic programs be operated in a manner free from discrimination on the basis of sex.

www2.ed.gov

 

[mred]

As long as women have equal opportunity to participate, I would think there would be no title 9 implications.

I agree with this. If the school is paying NIL money, this could be an issue. But as long as it remains an outside thing and the school itself treats athletes equally, I don't think there's a problem from a Title IX standpoint.

 

[Cyclad]

I agree with this. If the school is paying NIL money, this could be an issue. But as long as it remains an outside thing and the school itself treats athletes equally, I don't think there's a problem from a Title IX standpoint.

Thank you for educating me.

 

[GoldCy]

I agree with this. If the school is paying NIL money, this could be an issue. But as long as it remains an outside thing and the school itself treats athletes equally, I don't think there's a problem from a Title IX standpoint.

Logic has no place in a legal setting.