As a closing act, the Biden Department of Education has declared that universities must designate revenue sharing income used as NIL in a way that abides by Title IX, which means the university NIL funds must be shared equally between men and women sports. This throws a wrench in the plans by most schools, especially the richer ones, who were considering giving the NIL money from revenue sharing almost exclusively to men's sports. Expect the NCAA to fight this in court, though that could be seen as anti-women sports and harmful to their public relations image.
According to recent reports, NCAA I schools would be allowed to distribute revenue to their athletes up to 22% of the average Power 5 School annual athletic revenue, subject to a tentative revenue sharing cap of $20.5 million per school for the 2025-26 year. This annual cap is estimated to grow to around $ 30 million over the next ten years.
The Title IX limit does not yet apply to privately funded NIL money, but that may be subject to litigation as well. Complicating the Title IX situation, the new administration might have a different interpretation and the new House just passed a bill that would outlaw biological men in women sports or the university would lose all government economic support, a topic which will also likely see the NCAA revisit the courts if the Senate approves the bill as well.
https://twitter.com/PeteNakos_/status/1880028616630972483
I can't see how any private NIL/endorsement aspects would be subject to Title IX. I can see the public/general athletics NIL account, but private would make no sense. Those are people and/or companies that are specifically looking to endorse an individual athlete or sport. The government should not be able to tell individual citizens how their private donations are focused, if they are allowing such things to be made to the athletes themselves.
valpotx raises excellent points. My guess is that universities will find ways to work around the DOE Title IX edict. I also think that the positions of DOE will change as of early next week (not making a political statement or judgement here - just an observation).
I can't see how any private NIL/endorsement aspects would be subject to Title IX. I can see the public/general athletics NIL account, but private would make no sense. Those are people and/or companies that are specifically looking to endorse an individual athlete or sport. The government should not be able to tell individual citizens how their private donations are focused, if they are allowing such things to be made to the athletes themselves.
I have no stance on this, but the legal argument would be made that any use of university funds, facilities, or personnel to acquire, accommodate, or cooperate with private individuals or institutions supplying NIL support to athletes—perhaps as well as to promote, propose, or publicize the availability of the private NIL to athletes, plus facilitate contact and negotiations—may serve as an integral part of the process and so constitute university aid subject to Title IX stipulations.
I saw a few articles about this: The memo seems top suggest that schools are responsible for also ensuring that private NIL funds (such as from booster organizations) do not create a disparity in their athletic programs - a disparity would "trigger a school's Title IX obligations."
Here is an excerpt from ESPN:
The memo is not as clear in providing guidance on how payments from booster collectives closely associated with their schools are impacted by Title IX law. It states that the department does not consider money provided by a third party in an NIL deal as athletic financial assistance like the future revenue sharing payments or scholarship dollars. But if money from private sources ends up creating a disparity in an athletic program, it is possible that NIL agreements could "trigger a school's Title IX obligations."
Whether or not this would stand up on court or under the incoming administration is not clear.
I can't see how any private NIL/endorsement aspects would be subject to Title IX. I can see the public/general athletics NIL account, but private would make no sense. Those are people and/or companies that are specifically looking to endorse an individual athlete or sport. The government should not be able to tell individual citizens how their private donations are focused, if they are allowing such things to be made to the athletes themselves.
I have no stance on this, but the legal argument would be made that any use of university funds, facilities, or personnel to acquire, accommodate, or cooperate with private individuals or institutions supplying NIL support to athletes—perhaps as well as to promote, propose, or publicize the availability of the private NIL to athletes, plus facilitate contact and negotiations—may serve as an integral part of the process and so constitute university aid subject to Title IX stipulations.
From my light research. 3rd party scholarships are still bound by title IX and are to be reported as "financial assistance". The argument would most likely be that any outside NIL agreements count as "financial assistance".
