BRUTAL: Title IX is OFFICIALLY CANCELED After House Settlement, Women’s Sports Can Make ZERO Dollars

This is an automated post onto our collaborative platform by Locked On Big 12 from YouTube

If the video doesn't load/isn't available, you can watch HERE on YouTube

Find out how you can earn by sharing this content!

The recent House v. NCAA settlement, which paves the way for direct athlete compensation, is indeed raising significant concerns about its impact on Title IX. Many advocates for gender equity in sports believe that the settlement, in its current form, delivers a "brutal hit" to Title IX's core principles, primarily because of how the new financial model is likely to be implemented.

Here's a breakdown of why this concern is so prevalent:

1. The Discrepancy in Revenue Allocation:

The $20.5 Million Cap: The settlement allows schools to share up to an estimated $20.5 million annually with athletes (this cap will increase over time). However, there are few explicit guidelines within the settlement on how this money must be distributed across sports to comply with Title IX.
Expected Skew Towards Revenue Sports: The widespread expectation, and indeed the stated intention of many athletic departments, is that the vast majority of this $20.5 million will be allocated to football (estimated 70-75% or around $15 million) and men's basketball (around 15% or $3 million). This leaves a significantly smaller percentage (perhaps 5% or $1 million for women's basketball and another 5% or $1 million for all other sports, including women's Olympic sports) to be distributed among female athletes.
Historical Precedent: The back-pay portion of the settlement (approximately $2.8 billion) further illustrates this expected disparity, with 90% of those damages going to male athletes (75% to football, 15% to men's basketball) and only 5% to women's basketball and 5% to all other sports. This historical split, if replicated in future revenue sharing, directly contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of Title IX.
2. Title IX's "Financial Assistance" Interpretation:

Department of Education's Stance: The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces Title IX, has clarified that any payments from a school to an athlete for NIL are classified as "financial assistance." Under Title IX, financial assistance must be provided proportionally to male and female athletes based on their participation rates.

3. The "No New Money" Problem and Cuts to Other Sports:

Reallocation of Existing Funds: Many athletic departments are emphasizing that this $20.5 million is not new money but must be covered through existing revenue streams (media rights, ticket sales, fundraising) or through cuts.
Threat to Non-Revenue Sports (Including Women's Sports): Faced with a massive new mandatory expense, the fear is that institutions will look to cut or de-emphasize non-revenue generating sports, including many women's sports programs, to free up funds for the direct athlete payments in football and men's basketball. While the settlement included a compromise to grandfather in some roster limits, the financial pressure is immense. The Collegiate Coaching Associations have already voiced concerns about this potential "devastating consequence for non-revenue sports."
4. Increased Legal Vulnerability for Universities:

Private Litigation: While the Biden administration had issued guidance emphasizing Title IX's application to NIL, a subsequent administration could withdraw it. However, Title IX can also be enforced through private litigation. This means that female athletes or advocacy groups could sue universities that fail to equitably distribute revenue-sharing funds.
Unclear Guidance: The lack of clear, explicit federal guidance within the settlement itself on how Title IX applies to this new revenue-sharing model leaves schools in a precarious position. They must navigate how to balance competitive pressures (needing to pay top football/men's basketball players) with Title IX compliance, risking lawsuits if they get it wrong.
In essence, the "brutal hit" to Title IX stems from the fact that while the settlement allows for athlete compensation, it doesn't adequately mandate equitable distribution, and the existing economic model of college sports strongly incentivizes disproportionate spending on male revenue-generating sports. This creates a massive new financial hurdle for schools to clear while trying to remain compliant with a federal law designed to ensure gender equity in educational programs, including athletics. Many believe that without further legislative or judicial intervention, the new era of college sports could inadvertently exacerbate existing gender disparities.

Follow & Subscribe on all Podcast platforms…
https://link.chtbl.com/LOBig12?sid=YouTube