College Athletics Branding - Name Image Likeness Rules

[dublinirish]

Does this mean Michey isn't transferring? Not sure why he would promote this if you have to refund if you transfer...of course, he does still get paid from advertising ROY

he committed to Cal last week

 

[NDohio]

he committed to Cal last week

I mean, with the way people misspell names on here, I can see the confusion...Minchey, Mickey, Minchey, Mickey...

 

[OhioIrish]

Ausberry and Shuler also posted

So, fans can just pay players directly? If so, that is truly sad.

 

[MacIrish75]

So, fans can just pay players directly? If so, that is truly sad.

They were going to name this new venture where fans can pay players on their own OnlyFans…but apparently that name is already taken?

 

[Dale]

They were going to name this new venture where fans can pay players on their own OnlyFans…but apparently that name is already taken?

Joking but you’re exactly right. Their are many college athletes on a site called Passes:

Passes CEO Lucy Guo breaks down NIL partnership with Michigan, Bryce Underwood efforts, more

Michigan joins forces with Passes to get back on the forefront of NIL opportunities.

247sports.com

Their big slam dunks were Livvy Dunne and now Underwood. But teammates at Michigan as well as like Texas players too.

 

[IrishLax]

Have to break the politics rule here because this blends directly into sports:

This is a truly insane position by the Department of Education that has potential to destroy all of college sports. Pray that the upcoming guy puts someone in charge of DoE who immediately reverses this guidance.

 

[MacIrish75]

Have to break the politics rule here because this blends directly into sports:

This is a truly insane position by the Department of Education that has potential to destroy all of college sports. Pray that the upcoming guy puts someone in charge of DoE who immediately reverses this guidance.

Well…considering DJT wants to abolish the DOE, I’d say this decision won’t actually make it very far. I would seriously expect whatever iteration of the DOE exists in the near future to be headed by a guy like Ryan Walters from Oklahoma. Not that I’m for/against…that’s just what I forsee occurring.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Have to break the politics rule here because this blends directly into sports:

This is a truly insane position by the Department of Education that has potential to destroy all of college sports. Pray that the upcoming guy puts someone in charge of DoE who immediately reverses this guidance.

It’s what the statute says. The DoE can do no other. In the case of athletic scholarships the proportionality requirement has apparently meant that 60% of them going to men is acceptable. The difficulty is how to apply the standard; not that it applies at all.

 

[jprue24]

I think new leadership in the Dept of Ed could choose to not enforce Title IX with NIL. I don't envision anyone forcing them to do so, either They could drum up a new interpretation claiming that it somehow doesn't apply. Again, who contradicts them?

I know Congress could also pass a law about all of this and clean it up. ::snort:: It'd be mildly shocking if that happened.

 

[jprue24]

Have to break the politics rule here because this blends directly into sports:

This is a truly insane position by the Department of Education that has potential to destroy all of college sports. Pray that the upcoming guy puts someone in charge of DoE who immediately reverses this guidance.

I think there is a good chance that the Dept. of Ed won't be very active going forward. He also reversed everything he could that Obama had done. I don't see any reason to think it won't be the same or more going forward.

 

[Dale]

Politics in a nutshell. What a loser move for so many reasons

 

[IrishLax]

It’s what the statute says. The DoE can do no other. In the case of athletic scholarships the proportionality requirement has apparently meant that 60% of them going to men is acceptable. The difficulty is how to apply the standard; not that it applies at all.

That's not how Chevron Deference works and this interpretation is flat out nonsensical given 1) the Supreme Court ruling that led to this 2) the parameters of the House settlement. Literally no colleges were expecting this, all have been operating under the assumption that the breakdown would be something like:
70%-80% football
10%-20% men's basketball
0%-20% all other sports

 

[IrishTusker]

It’s what the statute says. The DoE can do no other. In the case of athletic scholarships the proportionality requirement has apparently meant that 60% of them going to men is acceptable. The difficulty is how to apply the standard; not that it applies at all.

The text of Title IX does not require an equal number of scholarships, or NIL money, or anything else just because it has a "disparate impact" on one sex or another. It's just an interpretation of the statute that regulators came up with several decades ago. Also, Chevron deference was overruled last year, so courts do not have to defer to "reasonable" agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. (That's assuming the statute is ambiguous.) But it probably won't matter because I doubt the incoming administration would agree with this interpretation anyway.

 

[ulukinatme]

Yup, Trump may need to abolish the Department of Education. Just when we get competitive in football again they're trying to fuck up NIL.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That's not how Chevron Deference works and this interpretation is flat out nonsensical given 1) the Supreme Court ruling that led to this 2) the parameters of the House settlement. Literally no colleges were expecting this, all have been operating under the assumption that the breakdown would be something like:
70%-80% football
10%-20% men's basketball
0%-20% all other sports

Chevron deference no longer works at all.

I was wrong to use the term statute. The proportionality language is not in the statute itself. It’s from the three prong analysis which has previously applied to gender and sports. Regardless, the DoE’s statement is not that significant or substantive. What’s the argument that Title IX does apply to scholarships but doesn’t apply to payments from schools to athletes?

 

[IrishLax]

Chevron deference no longer works at all.

I was wrong to use the term statute. The proportionality language is not in the statute itself. It’s from the three prong analysis which has previously applied to gender and sports. The DoE’s statement is not significant or substantive. You could easily get that expected breakdown even though proportionality applies.

That's exactly my point, they don't have carte blanche to just "interpret" a statute however they want and tell everyone to fuck off. All of the recent rulings on this (including the House settlement) were relatively clear that this payments would NOT be covered under Title IX because they are NOT an educational benefit... that's the entire basis of the Supreme Court saying "yeah you have to let these guys get paid, you've been hiding under calling college sports education when it's actually big business."

There are ZERO schools that expected this kind of guidance to be given. All of them have been preparing for July 1st under the assumption of completely different allocations of revenue sharing that is generally proportional to how much revenue the sport is generating.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That's exactly my point, they don't have carte blanche to just "interpret" a statute however they want and tell everyone to fuck off. All of the recent rulings on this (including the House settlement) were relatively clear that this payments would NOT be covered under Title IX because they are NOT an educational benefit... that's the entire basis of the Supreme Court saying "yeah you have to let these guys get paid, you've been hiding under calling college sports education when it's actually big business."

There are ZERO schools that expected this kind of guidance to be given. All of them have been preparing for July 1st under the assumption of completely different allocations of revenue sharing that is generally proportional to how much revenue the sport is generating.

The supreme court never said they have to be paid and never adressed Title IX or NIL at all.

Amd the House settelement’s attempt at collective bargaining by class action settlement has a whole lot of hurdles in front of it.

 

[NorthDakota]

That's exactly my point, they don't have carte blanche to just "interpret" a statute however they want and tell everyone to fuck off. All of the recent rulings on this (including the House settlement) were relatively clear that this payments would NOT be covered under Title IX because they are NOT an educational benefit... that's the entire basis of the Supreme Court saying "yeah you have to let these guys get paid, you've been hiding under calling college sports education when it's actually big business."

There are ZERO schools that expected this kind of guidance to be given. All of them have been preparing for July 1st under the assumption of completely different allocations of revenue sharing that is generally proportional to how much revenue the sport is generating.

I think they can tell people how DoE will be interpreting statutes. But DoE's word carries significantly less weight in light of Loper Bright.

There will continue to be lawsuits and it will be kinda funny to see the universities have a shot at winning because I have no idea if there is any substance to DoE's position, but judges aren't going to have their hands tied by it at all.

 

[GATTACA!]

I mean what is the DoE going to do if every big institution just tells them to fuck off and proceeds as planned?

 

[IrishLax]

The supreme court never said they have to be paid and never adressed Title IX or NIL at all.

Amd the House settelement’s attempt at collective bargaining by class action settlement has a whole lot of hurdles in front of it.

The Kavanagh opinion absolutely does mention Title IX, and it notes that with direct compensation from schools that question would need to be squared with litigation, legislation, or collective bargaining. The route taken for starters was litigation + settlement. In that settlement, there were no restrictions on who would get paid what money, the schools were effectively free to do whatever they wanted within the cap. And, most importantly, the backpay part of the settlement is more-or-less earmarked for football stars... there is a claims process that is expected to pay out up to $1.85 million max to a former player out of a $2.8 billion pool, and the amount you get is based on things (generally) tied to the revenue/ratings/etc. you produced.

Very clearly in the intent of the claims process from that settlement -- a field hockey player from Duke is not going to get the same payout as a football player from Bama.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the DoE decrees that women need to receive equal revenue ... not just from the cap and settlement, but also potentially from 3rd party NIL ... the latter part of that being batshit insane and completely misaligned with the O'Bannon case, Alston case, NCAA NIL rules, and the House settlement. They're trying to legislate swimmers with no Q score getting the same 3rd party money as Arch Manning and his cohorts, and that's bonkers level absurd.

 

[IrishLax]

I mean what is the DoE going to do if every big institution just tells them to fuck off and proceeds as planned?

Favorite quote I've seen so far was "we're all getting sued anyways, so might as well get sued with a good football team."

I'm telling you there was not a single athletic department that expected the Department of Education three days before inauguration to decree that 3rd party NIL deals are subject to Title IX. Many thought there might be some restrictions to the direct from school revenue sharing, but this went way past that.

 

[ulukinatme]

The Kavanagh opinion absolutely does mention Title IX, and it notes that with direct compensation from schools that question would need to be squared with litigation, legislation, or collective bargaining. The route taken for starters was litigation + settlement. In that settlement, there were no restrictions on who would get paid what money, the schools were effectively free to do whatever they wanted within the cap. And, most importantly, the backpay part of the settlement is more-or-less earmarked for football stars... there is a claims process that is expected to pay out up to $1.85 million max to a former player out of a $2.8 billion pool, and the amount you get is based on things (generally) tied to the revenue/ratings/etc. you produced.

Very clearly in the intent of the claims process from that settlement -- a field hockey player from Duke is not going to get the same payout as a football player from Bama.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the DoE decrees that women need to receive equal revenue ... not just from the cap and settlement, but also potentially from 3rd party NIL ... the latter part of that being batshit insane and completely misaligned with the O'Bannon case, Alston case, NCAA NIL rules, and the House settlement. They're trying to legislate swimmers with no Q score getting the same 3rd party money as Arch Manning and his cohorts, and that's bonkers level absurd.

I realize there's a difference between professional athletes and student athletes (Not much anymore), but it's like they've learned nothing from the disparities between the NBA/WNBA and mens/women's soccer. Like it or not, women's sports just don't draw or generate the kind of cash that big men's sports do. Trying to pay them equal is preposterous. I'm all for equal scholarships though, that's a bit easier to control.

 

[GATTACA!]

I realize there's a difference between professional athletes and student athletes (Not much anymore), but it's like they've learned nothing from the disparities between the NBA/WNBA and mens/women's soccer. Like it or not, women's sports just don't draw or generate the kind of cash that big men's sports do. Trying to pay them equal is preposterous. I'm all for equal scholarships though, that's a bit easier to control.

Obligatory.

 

[greyhammer90]

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but wouldn't this arguably help ND versus the public universities because Title IX doesn't apply to them? ND is a private institution. They are tax exempt as a 501(c)(3), but recent caselaw would suggest that being tax exempt is not the same as receiving federal financial assistance. Does ND recieve some other federal financial assistance that would make them subject to Title IX?

Title IX and Tax-Exempt Status: Fourth Circuit Holds That 501(c)(3) Status Is Not Federal Financial Assistance | JD Supra

In 2022, and as previously discussed here, two separate federal district courts each held that an independent school's status as a 501(c)(3)...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[IrishLion]

Have to break the politics rule here because this blends directly into sports:

This is a truly insane position by the Department of Education that has potential to destroy all of college sports. Pray that the upcoming guy puts someone in charge of DoE who immediately reverses this guidance.

He already said it’s gonna be Linda McMahon I thought… no idea what she will do lol

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Obligatory.

Had the exact same thought, glad you posted it.

 

[irishu]

That's not how Chevron Deference works and this interpretation is flat out nonsensical given 1) the Supreme Court ruling that led to this 2) the parameters of the House settlement. Literally no colleges were expecting this, all have been operating under the assumption that the breakdown would be something like:
70%-80% football
10%-20% men's basketball
0%-20% all other sports

Coach Corrigan straight up said only football and the basketball teams will get any revenue, with football taking 85%

 

[Free Manera]

More regulation of NIL is bad for ND simply because they will follow the rules and everyone else will not.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but wouldn't this arguably help ND versus the public universities because Title IX doesn't apply to them? ND is a private institution. They are tax exempt as a 501(c)(3), but recent caselaw would suggest that being tax exempt is not the same as receiving federal financial assistance. Does ND recieve some other federal financial assistance that would make them subject to Title IX?

Title IX and Tax-Exempt Status: Fourth Circuit Holds That 501(c)(3) Status Is Not Federal Financial Assistance | JD Supra

In 2022, and as previously discussed here, two separate federal district courts each held that an independent school's status as a 501(c)(3)...

www.jdsupra.com

If the university accepts Federal Financial aid for students, they are subject to Title IX. The article that you linked isn't referring to that.

The article instead is referring to the concept of a school that doesn't accept Federal Financial aid for students, they are not subject to Title IX. The lawsuits tried to argue that even if you don't accept Federal Financial Student Aid, the University is receiving Federal aid simply because they are tax exempt. Hillsdale College is well know for not accepting Federal Financial Student Aid and thus Title IX doesn't apply to them. Almost all schools receive Federal Financial Student Aid.

 

[greyhammer90]

If the university accepts Federal Financial aid for students, they are subject to Title IX. The article that you linked isn't referring to that.

The article instead is referring to the concept of a school that doesn't accept Federal Financial aid for students, they are not subject to Title IX. The lawsuits tried to argue that even if you don't accept Federal Financial Student Aid, the University is receiving Federal aid simply because they are tax exempt. Hillsdale College is well know for not accepting Federal Financial Student Aid and thus Title IX doesn't apply to them. Almost all schools receive Federal Financial Student Aid.

I know what the article was discussing, I linked it to show that ND's status as a 501(c)(3) didnt automatically make it subject to Title IX. The question posed in my original post was whether ND accepts federal financial aid for students. I agree that if they do, they are likely subject to Title IX. I'm just not sure that they do.