re: Coach Calipari has some suggestions for the NCAA in his new book

quote:

---

Title IX of the Equal Opportunity Act, in pertinent part, states that “[n]o 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.” While this statute was originally drafted to apply to “any education program,” most Title IX lawsuits today involve college athletics.

Past case law explains that Title IX prevents discriminatory practices by colleges in creating athletic teams and providing athletic scholarships. However, Title IX does not directly touch upon whether there is a requirement of equal financial terms for all student-athletes, above and beyond their athletic scholarships.

Courts have rarely analyzed Title IX in terms of pay — perhaps because NCAA members have historically fixed student-athlete pay at $0 despite the obvious antitrust risks of doing so.

However, in those rare instances where pay issues have emerged under Title IX, courts have typically viewed the act as coextensive with the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, courts have upheld greater pay for male coaches where the male coaches’ work has been found to involve greater “skill, effort or responsibility.”

While the terms “skill, effort or responsibility” are rather opaque, the ability to generate revenue is one factor that seems to fall reasonably within this criteria. For example, in Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that it may be permissible for the University of Southern California to offer higher pay to its men’s basketball coach because the men’s team generated far greater annual revenues.

---