Leveling the Playing Field: Title IX, Revenue Sharing, and the Need for a Shifting Approach to Gender Equality in College Athletics

Abstract

Title IX has long been the backbone supporting gender equality fostered by the interpretation and effectuation of the Department of Education (ED) and connected Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has called into question a wide array of administrative decisions, even going so far as to see current legislation deciding in favor of plaintiffs who challenge administrative rules. The future of college athletics has rapidly changed over the last few years, following the allowance of NIL money for athletes. These three issues converge on the right of athletes to receive TV money from their schools. A decision must be made on how this money is distributed and whose job it will be to make such a decision. While the recent Department of Education ruling provides a temporary shield for Title IX complaint revenue sharing, the question is begged: how long will this administrative ruling actually last? The challenge of litigation as well as the possibility of future agency changes that come naturally with administration turnover will likely threaten this decision rather quickly. This article will argue that in order to protect the future of Olympic sports, especially female sports, in college athletics, a shift away from Title IX must occur. To save the future of these sports at the college level, athletes must be deemed employees of conferences, finding alternative gender protections now under Title VII.

Keywords: college sports, College athletics, Title IX, Title VII, Equal Pay Act, Loper Bright, Chevron deference, NCAA v. House