The Trump administration鈥檚 latest directive on Title IX offered athletic departments more certainty about paying players, while suggesting the federal government wouldn鈥檛 hold schools to rigid requirements to distribute the proceeds equitably between men and women.
Though experts say Wednesday鈥檚 largely expected decision to rescind by the Biden administration will have more symbolic than real-world impact on the and other issues reshaping college sports, some see that as exactly the reason it's unwelcome news.
鈥淗ere we are experiencing this immense growth across all women鈥檚 sports and this sort of says we really don鈥檛 really believe that鈥檚 valuable,鈥� UCLA women's basketball coach Cori Close said. 鈥淚t really feels like it鈥檚 putting women鈥檚 sports back 25 years, honestly.鈥�
Had the Biden guidance stayed in effect, colleges would have had to grapple with how to equally distribute up to $20.5 million in NIL payments between men and women. Now that it has been scrapped, schools can go back to their original plan for the House settlement, which in many cases involved funneling most of the money to football and basketball players.
鈥淭his change is an impact, but it鈥檚 a 鈥榳hat-we-expected鈥� impact because schools are going to follow the formula for NIL that they'd been planning all along,鈥� said Rocky Harris, the chief of sport performance for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which has been watching the House settlement closely because around 75% of their athletes come from the college system.
Federal government not a nuts-and-bolts player in Title IX litigation
Since the federal government isn鈥檛 a party in the House case, it has little to do with the legal strategies being used in the $2.8 billion lawsuit, which has implications for women鈥檚 sports at almost every level 鈥� future payments to athletes, damages to athletes who played before NIL was allowed and that will redistribute numbers across athletic departments.
In fact, almost all litigation involving the 1972 law 鈥� a statute that requires schools to award financial assistance in proportion to the number of students of each gender who play sports on campus 鈥� comes not from the government but from individuals. And most of the litigation is ultimately decided in courtrooms, not in the Oval Office or the hallways of the DoE鈥檚 Office of Civil Rights.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 generally rely on the Department of Education to have a major impact on how those cases are handled,鈥� said John Clune, an attorney who filed a Title IX-based objection over the House case.
Clune is among those who believe Judge Claudia Wilken should consider Title IX when she decides whether to at a hearing set for April 7. Plaintiff attorneys portray the litigation as an antitrust lawsuit with some Title IX components that aren鈥檛 related to its ultimate purpose.
鈥淭his settlement cannot resolve the Title IX issue,鈥� plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler said.
Arthur Bryant, an attorney involved in both the House settlement and a Title IX lawsuit , said 鈥渢he Trump administration was wrong" about Wednesday's ruling, but it doesn't change the big picture.
鈥淭he law is still the law. Title IX requires schools that receive federal funds to treat women and men in their intercollegiate athletic programs equally," Bryant said.
Trump stamps his agenda on Title IX interpretations
This marks at least the third time since his inauguration that the Trump administration ha attempted to shape Title IX to express the new president鈥檚 agenda.
Last month, the Education Department told universities the government would go back to enforcing provisions in the law it enacted during Trump鈥檚 first term that included
Last week, Trump signed an executive order aimed at from competing in girls' and women鈥檚 sports.
The department also announced it was , two schools at the heart of the debate about transgender sports, over possible Title IX violations. On Wednesday, it said it was placing high school athletic associations in Minnesota and California under similar investigation.
These are examples of what have been rare instances of the government initiating Title IX action. Clune, the attorney on one of the House objections, said history has shown those sort of moves drag out.
鈥淚n the Obama terms, there was a lot higher expectation of schools to toe the line鈥� on Title IX, he said. 鈥淏ut any real consequences were not that effective and the length of time it took for OCR to resolve complaints took so long that it almost became an ineffective result.鈥�
There are fears the latest Title IX move could blunt momentum for women's sports
Trump's moves come in what has been an era of unprecedented growth for women's sports.
With Caitlin Clark leading Iowa to the national final last year, the women's title game drew better ratings than the men for the first time in history. Last month, the NCAA approved who make March Madness, bringing it in line with a practice that existed in the men's game for decades.
This comes after the NCAA and ESPN announced an eight-year, $920 million TV rights package with the women's tournament as the centerpiece, an increase of more than 300% from the previous deal.
The Biden guidance appeared to be another step forward for women's sports, but it has been taken off the books.
鈥淚t may not be just this new Title IX decision, it's NIL in general," said Close, the UCLA coach. 鈥淚t feels like we're back to, 'Well, we've got to take care of football and men's basketball and everything else is an afterthought. I'm not talking about it as my own (situation at UCLA), I'm talking about it as a global view. I just don't want us to go back on all the growth we've had in women's sports.鈥�
___
AP Sports Writer Beth Harris in Los Angeles contributed
___
The Associated Press鈥� education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP鈥檚 standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Eddie Pells, The Associated Press
