quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,223
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2440
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: (01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.
The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.
And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.
That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well.
From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...
The issue isn't whether the football program is getting federal assistance, it's whether the University of Alabama is. Title IX isn't aimed at football or any other sports program, it's aimed at the university. Universities, not specific sports programs, are either in compliance or not in compliance.
And so as long as football is "associated with the school" in any way, as long as it represents the "University of Alabama", and as long as UofA receives any kind of federal assistance, then the university of Alabama isn't going to be immune from Title IX.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 01:46 PM by quo vadis.)
|
|
01-31-2018 01:36 PM |
|