Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,800
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #21
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 12:37 PM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2018 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,079
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 533
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #22
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No 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."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 12:44 PM by Hokie Mark.)
01-31-2018 12:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,800
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #23
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No 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."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

The issue isn't whether the football program is getting federal assistance, it's whether the University of Alabama is. Title IX isn't aimed at football or any other sports program, it's aimed at the university. Universities, not specific sports programs, are either in compliance or not in compliance.

And so as long as football is "associated with the school" in any way, as long as it represents the "University of Alabama", and as long as UofA receives any kind of federal assistance, then the university of Alabama isn't going to be immune from Title IX.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 01:46 PM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2018 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,271
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No 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."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

Grand Canyon has to follow Title IX. The entire school, including the Athletic department, still has to follow Title IX.


What you are advocating would be that the Alabama football team could no longer have ANY association with the U of Alabama. Couldn't use the name, anything. Not happening.


The hate for Title IX is deplorable
01-31-2018 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,800
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #25
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 01:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No 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."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

Grand Canyon has to follow Title IX. The entire school, including the Athletic department, still has to follow Title IX.


What you are advocating would be that the Alabama football team could no longer have ANY association with the U of Alabama. Couldn't use the name, anything. Not happening.

Yep, because the association with the university is the basis for its support. Take that away and it's just a semi-pro football team of no interest to anyone.

And FWIW, even the bigguest football programs themselves receive federal aid. E.g., LSU just released its latest NCAA report. Football made a profit of $56 million in 2016 (not revenue, profit). But still, 61 LSU football players received Federal Pell Grants:

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/s...2a97b.html
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 01:51 PM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,692
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 903
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

Which is why holding the athletic department to the strandard of a for profit business is complete BS. Its a money losing affirmative action program. No "for profit" entity is required to run divisions that lose money and have no real customers just to allow people the chance to work.

As Ive said before---athletics is essentially the marketing arm of the university and it would be considerably cheaper if Title IV didnt exist. Thats not on the athletics department---thats government regulation running up the cost.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 02:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-31-2018 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,787
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 754
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3
And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

The removal of tax exempt status for the donations made in connection with ticket priorities is the first step in the direction of taking away non-profit status. You can't have it both ways. Either donations that are ultimately in support of non profit athletes are deductible, or they are not. And if they are not then the Athletic structure that procures those donations is a for profit and should be taxed.

But given that the government would be involved either way anything is possible. But there is an obvious conflict arising between what is taxable and non profit status in college athletics.

Title IX would be operative for swimming and diving and track & field because those are non profit sports. But lose the 85 scholarships for football to a different taxable status and those would not be counted toward Title IX. That you can't have both ways.

So what is going to happen, either way, is that many smaller schools are going to be forced (by red ink) to drop athletic programs altogether. The NET effect is the same.

Look you have players at Northwestern wanting to collectivize. You have the push for stipends to offset this by many P5 schools and some G5 schools. Now you have donations losing their tax deductible status, but obviously those donations go toward the athletes. We are a schizophrenic culture which can't figure out the difference between non profit and for profit, between scholarships and pay, and what constitutes player care and what constitutes extraneous benefits. And in the meantime we have lots of athletic departments operating in the red in the face of falling donations.

Something has to give. Either scholarships include a cost of living that is reasonable, or we pay and tax the players and treat them like a student worker. We either tax them or we don't. And depending upon how that is resolved contributions to the A.D. are either tax deductible or they are not. We can't keep confusing this process or everyone will lose.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 02:49 PM by JRsec.)
01-31-2018 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,692
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 903
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3
And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

The removal of tax exempt status for the donations made in connection with ticket priorities is the first step in the direction of taking away non-profit status. You can't have it both ways. Either donations that are ultimately in support of non profit athletes are deductible, or they are not. And if they are not then the Athletic structure that procures those donations is a for profit and should be taxed.

But given that the government would be involved either way anything is possible. But there is an obvious conflict arising between what is taxable and non profit status in college athletics.

Title IX would be operative for swimming and diving and track & field because those are non profit sports. But lose the 85 scholarships for football to a different taxable status and those would not be counted toward Title IX. That you can't have both ways.

So what is going to happen, either way, is that many smaller schools are going to be forced (by red ink) to drop athletic programs altogether. The NET effect is the same.

Look you have players at Northwestern wanting to collectivize. You have the push for stipends to offset this by many P5 schools and some G5 schools. Now you have donations losing their tax deductible status, but obviously those donations go toward the athletes. We are a schizophrenic culture which can't figure out the difference between non profit and for profit, between scholarships and pay, and what constitutes player care and what constitutes extraneous benefits. And in the meantime we have lots of athletic departments operating in the red in the face of falling donations.

Something has to give. Either scholarships include a cost of living that is reasonable, or we pay and tax the players and treat them like a student worker. We either tax them or we don't. And depending upon how that is resolved contributions to the A.D. are either tax deductible or they are not. We can't keep confusing this process or everyone will lose.

I didnt think it had anything to really do with tax status---I always thought it was basically one of the strings that was attached to receiving state/federal funds or being eligible for the Federally funded student loan program.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 02:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-31-2018 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,787
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 754
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 01:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No 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."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

The issue isn't whether the football program is getting federal assistance, it's whether the University of Alabama is. Title IX isn't aimed at football or any other sports program, it's aimed at the university. Universities, not specific sports programs, are either in compliance or not in compliance.

And so as long as football is "associated with the school" in any way, as long as it represents the "University of Alabama", and as long as UofA receives any kind of federal assistance, then the university of Alabama isn't going to be immune from Title IX.

You miss the whole issue Quo. Title IX says that equal benefits to women must be offered. If football becomes a pay for play for profit model then there are no scholarships. The very nature of for profit means that it is a separate business issue. My point is that it would mean that those 85 scholarships would go away because the players would simply be paid. There are no equal scholarships that have to be offered.

Furthermore if all profit sports at schools found their revenues to be taxable and all of them paid their players, what would the incentive for the University be to continue to fund money losing sports which utilized scholarships? As long as they eliminate men's and women's scholarships in equal numbers they aren't failing to comply. The are simply making a business decision not to lose money and that decision affects men and women equally.

It would then be argued that if a woman was good enough to play football she should be given the opportunity. But since football would be for profit, equal opportunity, not equal results would be all that would be required.

Do that for basketball and baseball and softball and you would have to open Softball up to participation by men. Because, the women would be competing for spots on the Football, Basketball, and Baseball teams and none of the teams could exclude the possible employment of either gender.
01-31-2018 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,787
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 754
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3
And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

The removal of tax exempt status for the donations made in connection with ticket priorities is the first step in the direction of taking away non-profit status. You can't have it both ways. Either donations that are ultimately in support of non profit athletes are deductible, or they are not. And if they are not then the Athletic structure that procures those donations is a for profit and should be taxed.

But given that the government would be involved either way anything is possible. But there is an obvious conflict arising between what is taxable and non profit status in college athletics.

Title IX would be operative for swimming and diving and track & field because those are non profit sports. But lose the 85 scholarships for football to a different taxable status and those would not be counted toward Title IX. That you can't have both ways.

So what is going to happen, either way, is that many smaller schools are going to be forced (by red ink) to drop athletic programs altogether. The NET effect is the same.

Look you have players at Northwestern wanting to collectivize. You have the push for stipends to offset this by many P5 schools and some G5 schools. Now you have donations losing their tax deductible status, but obviously those donations go toward the athletes. We are a schizophrenic culture which can't figure out the difference between non profit and for profit, between scholarships and pay, and what constitutes player care and what constitutes extraneous benefits. And in the meantime we have lots of athletic departments operating in the red in the face of falling donations.

Something has to give. Either scholarships include a cost of living that is reasonable, or we pay and tax the players and treat them like a student worker. We either tax them or we don't. And depending upon how that is resolved contributions to the A.D. are either tax deductible or they are not. We can't keep confusing this process or everyone will lose.

I didnt think it had anything to really do with tax status---I always thought it was basically one of the strings that was attached to receiving state/federal funds or being eligible for the Federally funded student loan program.

It's both. If you receive federal funding then offering equal opportunities is essentially the issue. But we are talking about scholarships. So there is a ratio for how many scholarships for women have to be offered versus those taken by men. And that ratio extends to the number of sports programs offered to each.

The reason football has remained tax exempt is because everyone understands that it has the been the financial support for the programs that will operate in the red. And for women's sports that's all of them with the exception of some Softball programs.

In men's sports it is true for all sports outside of the Big 3.

The Tax issue strikes at this matter from another perspective. If football players receive pay that pay will be taxable. Scholarships will cease and a Student Worker type situation would arise. Their income beyond certain levels then becomes taxable.

Student workers, like all workers, change the definition of equality from equal funding of scholarships for men and women, to one of equal opportunity for employment of men and women. If a Sport becomes for profit it cannot be bound to exist if it can't turn a profit. That include most women's sports and all men's sports beyond Football, Basketball, and Baseball with Hockey in parts of the North.

I was merely making the point that if we head into a for profit pay for play taxable relationship for profit sports, why would any University want to even keep those which lose money? I pointed out that IOC might help to fund the Olympic non profit sports because of their self interest in doing so. But other than private contributions to cover the cost, and agency funding like that potentially of the USOC and IOC, I don't see the reason any University would want to keep non revenue sports which are a liability to the tune of 10's of millions of dollars each year.

And to that point removing the tax deductible nature of athletic contributions is a step in that direction and the Tax Bill that just past does exactly that.

The up-shoot of the FBI probe into Nike and Adidas will be that if free goods are given and money exchanges hands for future endorsements the easiest way to clean this up is to make it for profit and tax it. Then there is no fraud and no foul.

If a sport is an employment relationship as opposed to a scholarship relationship the implications of Title IX shift from equal assistance to equal opportunity and the lack of scholarship status due to employment negates the need to counter those former 85 scholarships with those offered for women's sports.

I was pointing out the coming conflict over these matters and merely cautioning about the unintended consequences of monkeying around with nomenclature and tax status. The current Tax Bill which declares donations for ticket priorities to be non deductible is going to impact what those revenues fund, mainly the overhead of Athletic Departments which obviously is in large part represented by the funding of Title IX programs.

You really shouldn't tax any contributions that ultimately go to support non revenue sports. If it stands we are one step closer to taxing the for profit sports at which point an employer / employee relationship resolves the issues for players and schools, but negatively impacts the non revenue sports and their Title IX implications in that any money losing programs would be subject for equal cuts of men's and women's scholarships provided they were not funded by an extraneous source.
01-31-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.