One of the biggest gaps in the new world of NIL was the Title IX standards and whether the new money flooding to athletes would be subject to the same gender-equity compliance as other things like facilities, roster spots, and scholarships. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education announced today that NIL pay is subject to Title IX standards, which sends a chill through NIL planning ahead of a crucial legal deadline.
The DOE released a fact sheet providing the first formal information on NIL and revenue sharing, confirming these will be subject to Title IX standards. This sheet clarified that money paid to athletes under ‘NIL’ umbrellas need to be considered the same as athletic scholarships in regard to gender-equity, regardless of if the money is coming directly from the school.
This document comes after thirty-two University of Oregon student-athletes brought a lawsuit against the school for “depriving its female student-athletes of equal treatment, equal athletic financial aid, and equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics in violation of Title IX.” One of their primary complaints is the near-constant publicity the male sports, primarily football and basketball, receive and how this gives them increased opportunity for NIL deals.
The OCR document directly addresses this issue in their sheet, stating:
“A school’s obligation to provide equivalent publicity based on sex continues to apply in the context of NIL. For example, if a school is not providing equivalent coverage for women’s teams and student-athletes on its website, in its social media postings, or in its publicity materials, these student-athletes may be less likely to attract and secure NIL opportunities. In addition, if a school is publicizing student-athletes for the purposes of obtaining NIL opportunities, OCR would examine whether the school is providing equivalent publicity for male and female student-athletes.”
OCR specifically discusses NIL deals from the school and from outside entities. The fourth section of the sheet focuses on schools, saying “When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete’s NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes”
The document also discussed payments from booster-clubs, NIL collectives, and other donors, emphasizing that these types of payments are not exempt from Title IX standards simply because they aren’t coming from the school. “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.”
Read the full document from OCR here.
The release comes two weeks before settlement objections in the House vs NCAA case are due, and the lead attorney in the Oregon case, Arthur Bryant, told Sportico the sheet “makes clear our approach in the Title IX lawsuit is correct and strengthens our case. It also signals that the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA should not be approved.”
Gotta love this administration. Tossing a turd in the punch bowl with three days before they leave office is just par for the course. Good riddance.
You can’t make this stuff up. If $$$ sharing has to pass a Title IX test, then Men’s non-revenue sports just went from endangered to DOA.
I don’t think this made men’s sports any more existential than they already were. NIL money is outside of operating budgets, just is going to make it really hard for men’s non-rev sports to share in the collective money.
Aren’t NIL Payments mostly skewed toward female athletes already? If you factor in the insane amounts of money for Men’s Basketball and Football, it could be seen on paper that it’s unfair to male athletes but the reality outside of those two, it’s heavily female-dominant, right?
From my experience, NIL Booster clubs mostly sign deals for Men’s Basketball and Football. All other sports are moot, and athletes must make their own NIL deals. As a swimmer, you could have more social media following than some football players, but still never see 1% of the NIL money they get due to those Booster Clubs.
How does this lawsuit make sense?
Title IX doesn’t allow you to do the math simply “within a sport” because otherwise you’d have to have a women’s football team. If they did, then you wouldn’t see more men’s swim teams, you’d just see fewer women’s teams. Women’s swimming’s biggest value to a university is that it provides a large roster to offset football more efficiently.
I would pause on the “from my experience” part because this is changing in a hurry. Swimming alums are wealthy. It won’t be across the board, but a few alums are going to write very big checks.
Ultimately, your last question is close, but not quite there. College athletics treated like every other business in the world simply doesn’t make sense.… Read more »
Probably skewed female outside of football and basketball but those two are at least a multiple of 1000 more $ involved
There is so much to unpack across this entire issue. Everything so far seems to have been one-sided, rulings in favor of the athletes, NIL? Check. School revenue? Check. But what role does the school itself play in making the athletes marketable? Are donors and tickets and television revenue coming in because of the athletes, or because of the school name on the jersey? Face it, unless you’re a slam dunk pro out of HS, your best marketing tool is your school. They have provided the platform, the competition, the TV exposure. The fans are rooting for the school. I think where the school is concerned they never should have been on the hook for House.
NIL was serving its… Read more »
So exactly, how do schools police NIL money that they are not involved in? Private businesses, contracts, etc. that the school is not involved in.
With the new administration taking over and their “anti-woke” and anti-DEI policies, will they strike down Title IX?
A judge today already threw out Biden administration extension of Title IX protections for LQBTQ+ students (reminder that there’s a lot more to Title IX than sports stuff).
The president would be hard pressed to end Title IX unilaterally. Would probably require a congressional action, and given that the Republicans in the senate who have historically been most willing to vote against the tide are women, that feels unlikely.
A president could sort of…tweak things, though that’s what the Biden admin tried to do and it didn’t work out. Kind of depends on how much judicial consistency is shown – something that’s kind of been eroded recently. For sure would at least kick off a long court battle.
I only… Read more »
I believe, sadly, the normative boundaries will not hold in the next 4 years. The incoming circus, replete with organ grinders & tin cup chimps, won’t care a whit about Title IX.
(Disclaimer: not a political position, merely a sober observation.)
The circus is actually leaving
“I know you are but what am I?”
This judgement may only last 5 more days….
There is no doubt that this interpretation, like many agency interpretations, may change with the new administration. Will there be a desire to protect football, possibly to the detriment of women’s sports, by the same people who claim to be their protectors when they legislate against prepubescent transgender athletes even when there is no clear competitive advantage?
Somebody help me out here… why are schools giving house case payments already to athletes if we’ve got over 2 months till it hits court? Like what happens if the whole case gets dismissed in court
They aren’t, as far as I know.
Athletes are receiving estimates, not actual payouts.