In an act of clear-headed governance, the Trump administration’s Department of Education overturned a dubious directive issue by the previous Biden administration. This divisive directive had incorrectly stated that NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) compensation comes under the purview of Title IX compliance, and as such, should be fairly distributed between men’s and women’s programs. In what could be seen as a blatant attempt to make procedural matters overly complicated and burdensome for institutions under its mandate, the Biden administration lacked any substantial legal standing for its assertions.
The Department of Education, in the twilight of the Biden administration, acted with a singular, somewhat suspect resolve. It dispatched a fact sheet from the Office of Civil Rights, stating in no uncertain terms that NIL compensation would be enclosed within the bounds of Title IX compliance. In what appears to be textbook regulatory overreach, the Biden administration released this misguided advice just four days before the inauguration of President Trump.
The consequence of the directive was staggering, with the potential to send many revenue-sharing models into complete disarray. It seemed, the previous administration was willing to push an agenda without considering its impact on the financial management of schools. There was a looming threat of up to 70 percent of most schools’ allocated revenue-share pool being funneled back to support football programs. This approach was arguably an out-of-joint solution for an issue that needed a more nuanced touch.
In a decisive move, the Department of Education under the new Trump administration revoked this questionable directive that primarily served to burden schools and athletic programs. The newly minted Department of Education was unequivocal in its message: the prior directives lacked legal validity and would not be enforced. In a clear act of restoring balance, the contentious previous guidance was expunged from the Office of Civil Rights’ policy guidance portal.
Title IX, enacted half a century ago, is conspicuously silent on how revenue-generating athletics programs should manage compensation amongst student-athletes. The OCR intelligently reads into this silence, arguing that the previous administration’s directives were placing an undue burden on schools with no concrete legal footing. Proving another instance of over-ambitious regulation, the Biden administration confused the waters of student sports programs.
In a dismissive mood, the OCR termed the NIL guidance ushered in during the final stretch of the Biden administration as both ‘overly burdensome’ and ‘profoundly unfair’. They further added that it crossed the line of what agency guidance should ever hope to achieve. The previous administration appeared to be motivated by a compulsion to act, rather than any credible legal or practical considerations.
In a troublingly presumptuous manner, the Biden administration asserted that NIL agreements between schools and student athletes were tantamount to financial aid. As a result, they must somehow be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes under Title IX. This notion lacked any substantial legal or common sense backing, but it was petulantly parroted by their administration.
Not content with causing havoc within the Department of Education, this misguided guidance emerged at a time of sweeping changes within the department. A ‘Dear Colleague’ letter released on Feb. 4 by the Department served as a Title IX enforcement directive and transitioned the framework for Title IX from the 2024 Rule to the decidedly more sensible 2020 Rule.
Following this unplanned shift in policy approach, a federal court judiciously vacated the 2024 Title IX Rule. A decision that aligned with the Department’s shifting focus towards the principles and provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule. This was largely a response to the previously confusing state of affairs as dictated by the actions of the Biden administration.
In its fresh mandate, the Department excluded the vacated 2024 Title IX Rule while outlining the longstanding Title IX regulations in 34 C.F.R. 106 et seq. This move exemplified the administration’s commitment to correct the course and bring in policies rooted in solid legal ground.
Accordingly, any ongoing Title IX investigations initiated under the now-vacated 2024 Title IX Rule are to be reevaluated for consistency with the requirements of the 2020 Title IX Rule and the preexisting regulations. This level-headed decision stands as a testament to the Trump administration’s bid to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the Department’s functioning.
The Trump administration, picking up the pieces left by the misguided attempts of their predecessors, was strategic in restoring some semblance of order within the Department of Education. It did so by ensuring policy coherence, legal stringency, and a firm commitment to supporting smooth operations within educational institutions.
This story, providing an informative glance into the world of collegiate sports governance and policy, exposes the inconsistencies and misguided attempts of the Biden administration. Their decisions, often flawed in legal rationale and lacking in practical foresight, contributed to an environment of uncertainty and unnecessary red-tape.
Despite the Biden administration’s attempts to muddle clear waters, the Trump administrations showed their commitment to undoing past mistakes. Their prioritization of transparency and consistency in policy application is a beacon of hope to the many schools and athletes affected by the questionable directive.
In hindsight, the contentious issue of NIL compensation and Title IX compliance served to highlight the stark difference in policy guidance between the two administrations. One was overly reliant on heavy-handed regulatory moves, while the other valued clarity and precision in iteratively improving the regulatory landscape.
To conclude, the story of the Department of Education’s handling of the NIL compensation issue serves to underline the importance of careful, legally sound policy decisions. It also underscores the potential damage done by ill-considered governance, as exemplified by the approaches of the previous Biden administration.