January 14

Commentary: Title IX hardly to blame when colleges decide to slash sports teams

Instead, schools preserve their almighty football budgets at the expense of most everything else.

By Jonathan Zimmerman

NEW YORK — In 1975, U.S. Sen. Roman Hruska, R-Neb., warned a congressional hearing that college football was in mortal danger. The threat came from Title IX, the 1972 measure that outlawed sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance.

about the author

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches at New York University. He is the author of “Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory.” He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

To comply with the law, Hruska feared, colleges would have to equalize athletic budgets for male and female sports, and the only way to do that would be to raid the football budget.

“Are we going to let Title IX kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in those colleges and universities with a major revenue-producing sport?” he asked.

Hruska need not have worried. College football budgets have skyrocketed; at most Division I schools, 80 percent of all sports funds go to two men’s sports: football and basketball. To comply with Title IX, schools have cut other sports instead.

Look no further than Philadelphia’s Temple University, which slashed five men’s teams last month. Part of its stated reason was to comply with Title IX. But it also eliminated two women’s teams, softball and rowing, which the university said were too expensive to sustain.

Robert Morris University, a private college near Pittsburgh, slashed seven men’s and women’s teams. Last year, the University of Maryland also cut seven teams; in 2006, Rutgers eliminated six.

In each case, officials cited funding shortfalls. And they insisted that protecting football had nothing to do with their decisions.

Please.

According to stats culled by Sports on Earth writer Patrick Hruby, at Rutgers, one of the slashed teams – men’s tennis – had a budget of $175,000, which is roughly what the football team spent on hotel rooms for its home games. And between 1986 and 2009, the average salaries of football coaches at 44 big-time programs rose from $273,000 to more than $2 million.

Title IX historian Susan Ware calculates that in 2002, 91 of the 115 colleges in Division 1-A (which became today’s Football Bowl Subdivision) spent a larger proportion of their budgets on football than on all of their women’s teams combined.

And don’t think that football pays for the other teams either. That was a myth perpetuated by people like Hruska and Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, who in 1974 proposed amending Title IX to exempt “revenue-producing sports.” If the law harmed “the financial base of intercollegiate sports,” Tower said, “it will have thrown the baby out with the bath water.”

But in 1977, fewer than one in five varsity football teams made enough revenue to cover operating expenses. Today, the NCAA says, about half of big-time programs cover their expenses. But that statistic, Hruby reported, excludes the tax-exempt bonds and tax-deductible booster donations that fund gigantic capital expenditures like the University of Alabama’s $9 million weight room or the University of Texas’ $8 million “Godzillatron,” a 134-foot-wide high-definition video screen that stands as the largest in college football.

Contrary to what you might have heard, nothing in Title IX requires schools to spend the same amount of money on male and female teams. Nor does it mandate an equal number of male and female athletes. Instead, it requires schools to take measures to make male and female participation on sports teams proportional to the overall numbers of men and women in the student body.

That’s the way athletic departments wanted it back in 1972, when men earned 56 percent of bachelor’s degrees. By 2000, though, these numbers were almost exactly reversed: 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees went to women. So athletic departments had to enlist more women to account for their growing fraction of the student body.

One solution was to create new women’s teams like rowing, which enlisted large rosters and didn’t require athletes to have extensive high school experience.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)