The looming athlete compensation system that will upend the traditional college sports model and the yet-to-be-determined details about how millions of dollars will be distributed will certainly raise questions about gender equality.
Of particular interest will be whether schools must comply with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in any school or educational program that receives federal funds.
There are many questions to be addressed if a $2.77 billion settlement between the Chamber and the NCAA ends up being approved by a federal judge in the coming months, following a major step by the NCAA and major conferences on Thursday night. Among other things, the deal is expected to allow the nation’s wealthiest schools to spend approximately $20 million a year on their own athletes, starting next year.
Michael LeRoy, a professor of labor and sports law at the University of Illinois, and Iliana Konidaris, a New York civil rights lawyer, said Title IX rules will apply if schools are tasked with directing payments to athletes.
Konidaris said it will be critical for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to provide guidance on how revenue sharing and name, image and likeness compensation should be paid to keep schools in compliance with Title IX.
“If universities end up exercising control over revenue sharing,” Konidaris said, “they will need to address pay equity very head-on.”
A New York sports lawyer, Christina Stylianou, said her first instinct is that Title IX wouldn’t apply because athletes would essentially be selling their broadcasting rights to their school. That said, Stylianou expects the Title IX issue to be heavily litigated.
The historic 1972 law is intended to ensure equality between men and women in education. It applies to the classroom, sexual assault and campus violence, employment, discrimination, admissions, tuition financial assistance, and, of course, athletics.
Women’s and men’s teams must be treated equally under the law, although this does not necessarily mean that each sport will have exactly the same budget for equipment, facilities, travel or meals. Sports departments work under what is known as “equal effect,” which means that a benefit to a men’s or women’s team in one area can be offset in another area as long as “the overall effects of any differences are negligible.”
LeRoy said he understands the justification for arguing that football and men’s basketball players should receive larger portions of future revenues because their sports account for nearly all of the conference’s and NCAA’s broadcast rights fees.
If market value weighs heavily in determining salary, he said, it would be a stretch to believe there would be a 50-50 split between male and female athletes. But, he said, there needed to be provisions for women.
“I’m not arguing that it should be divided equally,” LeRoy said. “By bringing this into the athletic department, I don’t expect the distribution to be equal. But there is an inherent contradiction or problem if women are deceived.”
LeRoy said the situation is reminiscent of the legal action brought by the U.S. women’s national soccer team over pay inequality compared to the U.S. men’s national team. The women’s team won a settlement after initially alleging that the U.S. Soccer Federation violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Although college athletes are not yet considered employees, LeRoy and Konidaris said a legal argument could be made that the school’s direct payments to athletes bring athletes to the brink of becoming employees and that Title VII could apply.
“They’re going to leave the idea in the agreement that this isn’t employment,” LeRoy said. “So what you’re doing is saying that a multibillion-dollar industry called NCAA Athletics is going to be treated differently than any other business in America. You cannot have separate payment.
If schools choose not to handle payments internally and leave athlete compensation to booster-backed collectives eager to connect athletes and sponsorship money, this could be a way to get around Title IX regulations.
Hours after the NCAA settlement was announced, Oklahoma softball player Tiare Jennings was asked about the importance of the measure. She pointed to athletes’ post-college safety.
“I think what they get when they get out of college, just to have a foundation, to have something for their future families, for themselves, just to have some security blanket when you get out of college,” she said. starting a business, things like that, just to kickstart your life.”
Konidaris said schools that monetarily take care of their female athletes could develop stronger women’s sports programs.
“Universities that truly double equity in college sports will be rewarded with better programs for female athletes that I think over the next 10 years will generate revenue, just based on public interest and momentum for women’s sports,” Konidaris said.
The recent surge in popularity of women’s sports, generated by the star power of basketball players like Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese and others, couldn’t have been better timed, Konidaris said. Female athletes, she said, should see the moment as “an opportunity to be aggressive, to negotiate as much as they can to litigate and seek fairness and equity in pay.”
LeRoy agreed that this is a pivotal time for women’s sports.
“The question,” he said, “is will they be locked into a compensation model for the next 10 years that reflects the past rather than the future?”
___
This version corrects Christina Stylianou’s area of expertise. Stylianou is a sports lawyer, not a civil rights lawyer.
___
AP Sports Writer Cliff Brunt contributed to this report.
___
AP College Football:
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
