ND probably isn't the right example to think of when

ND probably isn't the right example to think of when
by VaDblDmr (2023-03-27 19:08:22)

In reply to: help me understand the students and olympic sport athletes posted by MrE

considering this. Female, full scholarship athletes at ND probably realize they have a pretty good thing going and would be less inclined to rock the boat. But I'm not so sure the same rationale would obtain at any number of SEC/B1G schools. Do you think female sprinters at LSU/Ohio State will be "all good" making $7.25/hour while the starting skill position players are making 7 figures? I'm fairly certain you'd have no shortage of plaintiff's attorneys salivating over that claim.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Even NIL could be creating TItle IX liability at Notre Dame and elsewhere.

ND football players getting $25K each, annually, via "NIL" while the only women's sport in which an entire roster is getting paid is basketball...that could be viewed one of two ways, it seems:
- an unequal opportunity provided by a booster party (more accurately defined as a 3rd party partner of ND's athletic department called FUND), and a potential Title IX violation, - OR _
- an equal opportunity to market one's own name, image, likeness for all student-athletes; CFB players are just simply more marketable and attract more NIL dollars (See: any and all data on TV viewership of CFB/women's sports, the fact the entire WNBA is only 40% the market size of ND football, and so on).

Obviously, I tend to lean towards the side of merit-based compensation and that Major CFB is a unique beast and a multi-billion dollar industry (and as such should be treated differently) while the other college sports are nothing like it and more in line with the extracurricular activities intended from the start.

That being said, not sure the courts will see it that way, as you say.