This week, three congresswomen accused the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) of violating Title IX’s spirit of gender equality.

The letter comes a year after a dustup during Division I basketball’s March Madness when female athletes took to social media to show the paltry facilities set aside for women. Training equipment was less than basic and meals were substandard for elite athletes.

In response, the NCAA hired an outside law firm to investigate gender equity in the organization. The investigation later showed that the NCAA did actually spend more on male athletes in its championships than it spent on female athletes.

The NCAA did some window-dressing to prevent another social media firestorm, say Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ). But they  condemn the organization for not making enough progress.

 “You have failed to take meaningful steps to correct deficiencies… and you have failed to ensure gender equity across NCAA’s athletic programs,” they wrote to NCAA president Mark Emmert.*

Serve to Renee Smith

However, in their letter, the lawmakers also go on to suggest that the NCAA might be in violation of Title IX. Could that be true?

Actually, that question has been answered — by the Supreme Court.

In 1996, Renee Smith, a volleyball player who had graduated from St. Bonaventure University, filed a lawsuit against the NCAA alleging Title IX discrimination. Renee played for two seasons as an undergrad, spent one year as a graduate student at Hofstra University and a second at the University of Pittsburgh, where she had hoped to continue playing volleyball.

But back then the NCAA had a rule that graduate students could only play varsity sports at institutions they attended as undergraduates. So the NCAA denied her eligibility to play.

Renee applied for a waiver of the NCAA’s restrictions but was again denied. Her lawsuit claimed that the NCAA’s denial was discrimination based on sex, because the NCAA grants more waivers for male post graduate students than for female.

The NCAA countered that because it didn’t receive federal funding, Title IX didn’t apply in its case. But the NCAA does receive dues from member universities, which themselves are subject to Title IX, so Renee was hoping to prevail on that basis.

The case wound its way through the courts until finally reaching the Supreme Court in 1999. The court ruled unanimously that the NCAA can’t be sued under Title IX. Its reasoning was that funds the NCAA received from federally-funded institutions could not be directly tied to student financial aid. Only institutions that directly receive federal funded are subject to Title IX, the justices ruled.

Not the end of the game?

The NCAA later said that the only reason male athletes receive more waivers is that more males ask for them. It said that, actually, a higher percentage of waivers requested by women are granted than the percentage granted to males.

For her part, Renee found the whole experience disheartening.

“Going against a major organization who doesn’t really answer to anyone, it’s a very frustrating experience,” Smith said.**

But the legislators might be on to something. Footnotes to the Supreme Court ruling hinted that the case still had merit. Perhaps the congresswomen are signaling that it’s time for another volley.

                                                _________________________

* Ross Dellenger, “Lawmakers Slam NCAA for Failing to Address Disparity in Men’s and Women’s Sports,” Sports Illustrated (March 15, 2022)

** Sharon Ginn, “Volleyball player aims return shot at NCAA,” Tampa Bay Times (January 24, 1999)