In reply to: how can they possibly use the money to pay women's sports posted by jt
Give them 48% of all revenue generated by their sport (scholarship values included in that formula).
As the Knight Commission suggests in a recent study, the big boys in FBS will have revenues on average, well over $200M a year. Some already do. Most of that is Football-Related-Revenue (FRR).
I'm not an attorney, so I'll defer to you and others.
But could "equal opportunity" or "fair treatment" be constructed to mean that ND football players would, if a Marvin Miller ever materializes, be able to get 48% of ND's soon-to-be $175M of FRR, and ND softball players would be able to get 48% of their SRR?
question. I'm linking a roundtable on the topic.
applies to student athletes who are deemed employees, then I would compose it of people with their backgrounds. My (non lawyer) opinion is the opposite and I think it is common sense that Title IX was never intended to include any class of people deemed employees. Those student athletes not deemed employees will still fall under Title IX.
"Title IX was never intended to include any class of people deemed employees."
You realize Title IX covers a lot more than athletics, right? The notion that Title IX doesn't cover employees is . . . not close.
Hopefully there is a path that doesn’t destroy most Olympic sports at Universities. Paying football & basketball players the market value they deserve will significantly reduce the money available for those other sports.
for example, perhaps trimming some of the bloated AD staff could free up some money.
correct me if I'm wrong, but the salary structure of employees doesn't have to balance out, does it? Do we need a female employee making north of 3 million dollars per year to balance out our AD? How about balancing out what we pay Freeman (which is more than that)?
The title 9 argument is and always has been a red herring.
(i.e. a minor league), I would imagine that forcing the players to split their revenue (generated in part due to their efforts) with the female sports would require some sort of agreement (i.e. "permission" also known as a "bargaining agreement") or it could lead to more lawsuits down the road (and rightly so, in my opinion). This is why I've always stated that the NFL needs to be involved, as this is truly their de-facto minor league, and currently it is 100% free for them, which is the biggest load of bullshit in this whole situation.
If the media companies pay the players directly, they would likely want control over which players went where and other things. That might be a place to start, however. Again, IMO it would need to be bargained and I'm not sure exactly how that would work.
If you carve out the teams and make them employees, I'm not sure why you can't have academic requirements; again, you would have to bargain for that. You could make cost of tuition part of the compensation agreement. There are a variety of solutions, but as I said above, one has to believe that both sides are reasonable and at least interested in a mutually beneficial solution. 100 plus years of NCAA administration would argue that the situation is actually the opposite of that.
That’s amusing. What a brave new world. I think at that point we might as well stop calling them student athletes. As you’ve said, at many places they haven’t been students for decades (if ever) so it won’t be much of change, but I don’t see how this model doesn’t end with ND becoming equivalent to Ole Miss in all ways other than the uniforms.
the academic requirements would tie to eligibility and amount of time someone could play for a school.
They would need to bargain for it. And yes, I agree that this is a mess and it's a damn shame.