I don't think anyone has made that assumption.

there seems to be an assumption on your part, however, that female athletes want to be included on revenues generated from other sports. I don't think that's necessarily accurate. In fact, I have yet to see that claimed by any female athlete anywhere.

however, I have seen the NCAA talking points which basically go something along the lines of, "if we pay the male players, it will ruin women's sports. Why do you hate women?" Of course, anyone even somewhat capable of critical thinking sees that nonsensical argument for exactly what it is.

specious arguments. (again, at the risk of politically adjacent topics) People out here are using the ADA to sue the city for not clearing homeless tents. I would postulate they do not actually care about people with disabilities, they wanted a vehicle (or an excuse, depending on how you look at it) for the other issue. Be that as it may, they may actually be legally correct.

Likewise, it could entirely be true that Jack and co are using title 9 as an excuse to not change anything, but that hardly means change isn't a fraught and perilous subject, nor does it mean those who question things under title 9 are all shills for The Man.

You have yet to see female athletes wanting money revenue? I'm pretty sure if you ask the womens' basketball team if they'd like to be paid they'd say "ok!".

hence the request for athletes to be paid minimum wage (as a starting point). I have yet to see female athletes demand to be paid from the same pie as the football players, as an example. That would be silly.