Title IX Lawsuits

[AppStFan1]

[AppFan11]

No big surprise there. They should file the suits. It the courts that have brought this on … not the NCAA…. this will continue and they will force the schools to more equitably share the Rev share or force schools to may large one/time payments to the affected sports programs….

[Saint3333]

They are going to eat their own and it’s glorious.

[appst89]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

[AtlAppMan]

This is a major can of worms, every corner you go forward you also uncover a new issue.

When it was a quid pro quo of student receives a scholarship (which has inherent value) in exchange for participating in sports, it was simple. Just equalize between male/female sports. The students did get free education and essentially "opportunity" for professional sports (the small percentage that may advance).

However, the model we are in now is really more of an employer/employee relationship and as everyone has said there are infinite complications that get introduced with this model. I think it just gets way more messy going forward. The dust is far from settled for years.

[Appmountaineers19]

At least one thing was fixed in the last couple of days (not sure why it was even allowed) Men in women sports. So that's a win!

[Bootsy]

Regardless of the twists and turns we encounter with college sports, the attorneys continue to win…and get paid.

[KentHogan]

At least one thing was fixed in the last couple of days (not sure why it was even allowed) Men in women sports. So that's a win!

Agreed.

[AppStFan1]

Regardless of the twists and turns we encounter with college sports, the attorneys continue to win…and get paid.

That can end with the antitrust and CBA. My only question is how long until we get there. I still don't think non-revenue sports and especially women's sports are going to like the end if they all keep suing though. ADs are going to look for ways to not go way over budget or loopholes to get around such as moving down a level or two, going to non-scholarship, or possibly moving football out from under the school and those removing the need for 85, or maybe 105, women's scholarships.

[t4pizza]

Regardless of the twists and turns we encounter with college sports, the attorneys continue to win…and get paid.

That can end with the antitrust and CBA. My only question is how long until we get there. I still don't think non-revenue sports and especially women's sports are going to like the end if they all keep suing though. ADs are going to look for ways to not go way over budget or loopholes to get around such as moving down a level or two, going to non-scholarship, or possibly moving football out from under the school and those removing the need for 85, or maybe 105, women's scholarships.

The way I see it, the only way that women's and men's non-revenue sports are going to survive in any meaningful way is if the courts protect them. They have to sue. Everybody should know that AD's will cut every corner possible to save football and men's basketball to a lesser degree. If they don't sue, they will slowly but surely be cut to the barest level possible. The courts are the only potential protection out there.

[t4pizza]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

[appst89]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

[AppStFan1]

Regardless of the twists and turns we encounter with college sports, the attorneys continue to win…and get paid.

That can end with the antitrust and CBA. My only question is how long until we get there. I still don't think non-revenue sports and especially women's sports are going to like the end if they all keep suing though. ADs are going to look for ways to not go way over budget or loopholes to get around such as moving down a level or two, going to non-scholarship, or possibly moving football out from under the school and those removing the need for 85, or maybe 105, women's scholarships.

The way I see it, the only way that women's and men's non-revenue sports are going to survive in any meaningful way is if the courts protect them. They have to sue. Everybody should know that AD's will cut every corner possible to save football and men's basketball to a lesser degree. If they don't sue, they will slowly but surely be cut to the barest level possible. The courts are the only potential protection out there.

100% agree here but they can't prevent schools from dropping down to D3 and they can only protect that equal money is spent on them. Schools and the NCAA can agree to lower the number of required sports and what we could eventually see is perhaps where only football, basketball, and baseball survive in D1 for men and then enough women's to equal it. We are far from done.

[t4pizza]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

This is kind of the interesting part of what is going on now from a legal point of view. The House settlement, while I agree is a complete restraint of trade, would never have been reviewed by an appellate court because it was a settlement so all parties agreed to it and nobody would appeal. Now that the women have objected to the settlement and joined, we have a potential appellate issue. Whatever way the trial judge rules on the women's issues, the other side will appeal to a higher court. It now gives an avenue for the Supremes to eventually get this case. I have no question that they would say it is a restraint of trade, because it is.

[AppStFan1]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

The House settlement is not enforceable and will be challenged in court even more just like what those SFA women did. I don't like the mess either and I don't want to lose Olympic sports but if giving them up allows us to keep the 3 most important sports financially then it will have to be done.

That is a good idea to get them to agree to give a small percentage to those other sports to keep them afloat but two questions on it. Would 1-2% be enough to keep them and would football players be willing to give up some of their money just to keep the other sports? If so, and if women would agree to take that and not keep these Title IX fights, then I would be for it.

There are just 3 things I know for sure here. 1. The House settlement is not going to be the end of this and it won't be enforced at end of day. 2. We will have have a CBA in football eventually. Those who don't like it, including myself, better accept it and deal with the reality. 3. We are not close to being done with all of this yet. Courts take so long so it would not surprise me if it is another 10 years or more before all of this is settled.

[t4pizza]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

The House settlement is not enforceable and will be challenged in court even more just like what those SFA women did. I don't like the mess either and I don't want to lose Olympic sports but if giving them up allows us to keep the 3 most important sports financially then it will have to be done.

That is a good idea to get them to agree to give a small percentage to those other sports to keep them afloat but two questions on it. Would 1-2% be enough to keep them and would football players be willing to give up some of their money just to keep the other sports? If so, and if women would agree to take that and not keep these Title IX fights, then I would be for it.

There are just 3 things I know for sure here. 1. The House settlement is not going to be the end of this and it won't be enforced at end of day. 2. We will have have a CBA in football eventually. Those who don't like it, including myself, better accept it and deal with the reality. 3. We are not close to being done with all of this yet. Courts take so long so it would not surprise me if it is another 10 years or more before all of this is settled.

Completely agree with 1 and 3, not so sure about 2 yet. It could happen, but the sure number of new kids every year make it a lot different than what we have in pro sports.

[AppStFan1]

The Title IX lawsuits were inevitable. But they aren't going to force anything other than counter lawsuits from the revenue producers because if Title IX applies to revenue distribution then it is directly contradictory to the Sherman Antitrust Act. There can be no sharing of revenue that isn't an illegal restraint of trade unless it is collectively bargained by the revenue producers, and that can only happen if there is an antitrust exemption granted by Congress.

The courts had nothing to do with creating this mess.

The whole House settlement is likely not legally enforceable, and there are going to be a continuous stream of lawsuits until Congress acts or everyone goes bankrupt.

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

The House settlement is not enforceable and will be challenged in court even more just like what those SFA women did. I don't like the mess either and I don't want to lose Olympic sports but if giving them up allows us to keep the 3 most important sports financially then it will have to be done.

That is a good idea to get them to agree to give a small percentage to those other sports to keep them afloat but two questions on it. Would 1-2% be enough to keep them and would football players be willing to give up some of their money just to keep the other sports? If so, and if women would agree to take that and not keep these Title IX fights, then I would be for it.

There are just 3 things I know for sure here. 1. The House settlement is not going to be the end of this and it won't be enforced at end of day. 2. We will have have a CBA in football eventually. Those who don't like it, including myself, better accept it and deal with the reality. 3. We are not close to being done with all of this yet. Courts take so long so it would not surprise me if it is another 10 years or more before all of this is settled.

Completely agree with 1 and 3, not so sure about 2 yet. It could happen, but the sure number of new kids every year make it a lot different than what we have in pro sports.

If football is not going to be dropped and athletes are going to get paid then I think a CBA has to happen. My gut a couple years ago is that it would happen and now ADs are saying it out loud so that makes me feel confident it is coming. They certainly did not want to go that route and that is why they are just now bringing it up publicly but it is the only legal way out of a lot of this mess with football. Players will give up some things like unlimited transfers, those making extreme salaries now would be making less, etc but they will gain a lot as well. A big thing they would gain is there would be a body who would now establish requirements for agents because now it is the wild west in college. The NFL has standards for agents so their players get better representation and don't have to pay nearly what college players are paying their agents.

[Appst86]

Maybe the Supreme Court will determine there is no difference between boys and girls when it comes to sports; thus Title IX becomes irrelevant.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme ... _permalink

[appdaze]

I still believe in the long run football will separate from the schools becoming their own entities. Athletes could be students if they chose to or just play football. The teams would pay a fee for using the schools NIL and facilities. This would circumnavigate title IX and allow the schools to still make some money off of football from sponsorship fees and any contracted negotiations between the team and the school on an individual basis. Playing on campus still brings in the students and alumni. CBAs will be created and players will get paid salaries.

All other sports remain with the schools including basketball because it is not nearly as self sustaining as football can be. NIL will still be in play for other sports but college programs would eliminate a lot of costs with football removing itself as a major cost and becoming mainly just revenue source via NIL/contracted agreements. I think this is the only way the rest of the sports get saved from the black hole that is current college football.

[t4pizza]

Title IX is no more of a restraint of trade than the House settlement itself is. That being said, not sure Title IX really applies, but if the courts rule that it does, I do not see that as inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If the court rules that the "revenue share" must be equally shared with women's sports, then it will not be viewed as a monopolistic policy since it is court ordered. I do agree, Antitrust exemption is only option. Even a collective bargaining agreement will have huge issues simply because unlike pro sports where small numbers enter the league each year, 1000s of new freshman enter across the board.

Most people I've heard don't think House is enforceable because it imposes a salary cap and forces revenue sharing, neither of which were collectively bargained. The DOJ has already made rumblings that they don't think House is legal.

I hate the mess that it is. I really don't want to see Olympic sports go away, but that seems to be the outcome of just about every scenario that isn't illegal. I suppose the best option is for football to have a CBA where they agree to give 1% or 2% o their total revenue to support Olympic sports.

The House settlement is not enforceable and will be challenged in court even more just like what those SFA women did. I don't like the mess either and I don't want to lose Olympic sports but if giving them up allows us to keep the 3 most important sports financially then it will have to be done.

That is a good idea to get them to agree to give a small percentage to those other sports to keep them afloat but two questions on it. Would 1-2% be enough to keep them and would football players be willing to give up some of their money just to keep the other sports? If so, and if women would agree to take that and not keep these Title IX fights, then I would be for it.

There are just 3 things I know for sure here. 1. The House settlement is not going to be the end of this and it won't be enforced at end of day. 2. We will have have a CBA in football eventually. Those who don't like it, including myself, better accept it and deal with the reality. 3. We are not close to being done with all of this yet. Courts take so long so it would not surprise me if it is another 10 years or more before all of this is settled.

Completely agree with 1 and 3, not so sure about 2 yet. It could happen, but the sure number of new kids every year make it a lot different than what we have in pro sports.

If football is not going to be dropped and athletes are going to get paid then I think a CBA has to happen. My gut a couple years ago is that it would happen and now ADs are saying it out loud so that makes me feel confident it is coming. They certainly did not want to go that route and that is why they are just now bringing it up publicly but it is the only legal way out of a lot of this mess with football. Players will give up some things like unlimited transfers, those making extreme salaries now would be making less, etc but they will gain a lot as well. A big thing they would gain is there would be a body who would now establish requirements for agents because now it is the wild west in college. The NFL has standards for agents so their players get better representation and don't have to pay nearly what college players are paying their agents.

I think we get an antitrust exemption first and once that happens, there would no longer be a need for a CBA as the NCAA, or whatever private entity is set up to do what the NCAA now does, would have all the power again. I am sure Congress will want to see some sort of guidelines to ensure that things don't go as far backwards as they once were, but not sure unionization and CBA is the answer. Some AD's are talking about a CBA now but I don't hear any Presidents or Chancellors talking about unionization and employee status at all. Without the Universities recognizing student athletes as employees there is no union and without a union there is no collective bargaining. I just don't know if I see the schools coming around to that yet. It may happen; I just don't see it at this point.