[lex24]

Just my opinion, but Title IX is NOT going to kill this settlement.

The letter of the law is about equitable opportunities, not equal. 

Universities routinely flout the spirit of Title IX with massively overinflated women's rowing rosters and extremely disparate travel/recruiting budgets for comparable sports (women's bb vs. men's bb). I expect more of the same to occur with revenue sharing.

And because the settlement explicitly ties the revenue sharing with athletes to a percentage of university athletic program revenue, the pathway is clear to shortchange all athletes whose sports are not on ESPN and/or do not draw paying customers. Sorry men's gym and women's golf, among others. 

(Yes, there could/should be a lawsuit on behalf of those students not getting much of the revenue-sharing, but this settlement, I think, frames college athletics as a business venture. Tough to see the business case for men's gym to get revenue sharing that exceeds the revenue they bring in. Actually, I think it slightly more likely that football players could sue to get an even greater percentage of revenue sharing than what they're probably going to get, as football is the lever for the massive conference media rights deals. Without football, would the ACC have a deal to get their softball games on ESPN?)

Universities aren’t “flouting the law” with rowing etc.  They are doing it to comply with the participation requirement - which is acheived most easily by having participation and scholarships/aid numbers equal to the percentage of women and men in the student body.

The law does not require equal budgets for teams within a school. It does require aid to be proportional to the student body.

There will be actions brought under Title IX if the pay is “disproportionately “ shelled out to men. Given football, hard to think how it won’t be.

---

I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

if that's the case then

1.  do men's and women's sports need the same number of roster spots in total across all sports to be Title IX compliant?
2.  for the partial scholarship sports (e.g., baseball) their costs could go up (or roster sizes decrease) and the total number of scholarships could increase and may change the balance of men's/women's scholarships requiring an adjustment in both

Like I said, yesterday was a great day for Title IX attorneys lol. Lots of unanswered questions still. The parties to the settlement basically acknowledged that they were kicking the can down the road re: Title IX.

My understanding is there need be a like percentage of participation and financial aid based not on the number of athletes, but on the student body in general. That, I believe is the general “participation” test.  I believe schools can try to prove circumstances to make exceptions.

In any event, I see almost no way that this settlement, if approved, is not heavily litigated on title IX issues.  Why should a AllAmerican QB candidate be paid more than a member of the women’s volleyball team? Or, for that matter, the men’s volleyball team.

Not to mention a host of other wage discrimination claims.  Based on any number of protected statuses.

[lex24]

Just my opinion, but Title IX is NOT going to kill this settlement.

The letter of the law is about equitable opportunities, not equal. 

Universities routinely flout the spirit of Title IX with massively overinflated women's rowing rosters and extremely disparate travel/recruiting budgets for comparable sports (women's bb vs. men's bb). I expect more of the same to occur with revenue sharing.

And because the settlement explicitly ties the revenue sharing with athletes to a percentage of university athletic program revenue, the pathway is clear to shortchange all athletes whose sports are not on ESPN and/or do not draw paying customers. Sorry men's gym and women's golf, among others. 

(Yes, there could/should be a lawsuit on behalf of those students not getting much of the revenue-sharing, but this settlement, I think, frames college athletics as a business venture. Tough to see the business case for men's gym to get revenue sharing that exceeds the revenue they bring in. Actually, I think it slightly more likely that football players could sue to get an even greater percentage of revenue sharing than what they're probably going to get, as football is the lever for the massive conference media rights deals. Without football, would the ACC have a deal to get their softball games on ESPN?)

Universities aren’t “flouting the law” with rowing etc.  They are doing it to comply with the participation requirement - which is acheived most easily by having participation and scholarships/aid numbers equal to the percentage of women and men in the student body.

The law does not require equal budgets for teams within a school. It does require aid to be proportional to the student body.

There will be actions brought under Title IX if the pay is “disproportionately “ shelled out to men. Given football, hard to think how it won’t be.

---

I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

if that's the case then

1.  do men's and women's sports need the same number of roster spots in total across all sports to be Title IX compliant?
2.  for the partial scholarship sports (e.g., baseball) their costs could go up (or roster sizes decrease) and the total number of scholarships could increase and may change the balance of men's/women's scholarships requiring an adjustment in both

Like I said, yesterday was a great day for Title IX attorneys lol. Lots of unanswered questions still. The parties to the settlement basically acknowledged that they were kicking the can down the road re: Title IX.

My understanding is there need be a like percentage of participation and financial aid based not on the number of athletes, but on the student body in general. That, I believe is the general “participation” test.  I believe schools can try to prove circumstances to make exceptions.

In any event, I see almost no way that this settlement, if approved, is not heavily litigated on title IX issues.  Why should a AllAmerican QB candidate be paid more than a member of the women’s volleyball team? Or, for that matter, the men’s volleyball team.

Not to mention a host of other wage discrimination claims.  Based on any number of protected statuses.