Many people think that girls are not as interested in sports as boys. Research shows that boys and girls between the ages of six and nine -- and their parents -- are equally interested in sports participation. However, by the age of 14, girls drop out of sport at a significantly greater rate than men. (Wilson Report, 1988)
Girls and women simply do not receive the same opportunities as boys to play or the same positive reenforcement about their sports participation. Little boys receive balls, gloves and sports equipment by the age of two. They see their images on television as sportsmen, they see their photos in the sports section and know from their parents and friends that they are expected to play sports. Once girls get into the school setting, their opportunities to participate are half that afforded boys.
Even though many girls quit sport at an early age due to lack of opportunity and encouragement, there is no lack of interest and ability on the part of males or females to participate in the finite number of opportunities available at the collegiate level. Currently, over three million males and two million female athletes participate at the high school level (in a system that itself does not yet provide full equal opportunity for girls). There are many more girls participating in Olympic sports traditionally not offered in the high school athletic program. Currently, there are only 186,045 male and 96,467 female athletes on NCAA teams (NCAA, 1993). Thus, there are far more young girls and boys interested in competing in varsity sports at the college level than playing slots available. There are more women athletes who want to play than opportunities for them to play.
There might be a handful of Division III, non-scholarship programs in the nation that offer 12 to 18 different women's sports and similar numbers of men's sports and do not recruit their participants except from the available student body. These schools truly may have met the interest of their existing student body. However, most other collegiate institutions, even non-scholarship programs, do not look to their existing student bodies to recruit athletes for their teams. They tell their coaches to recruit incoming freshmen for their teams. At many small scholarship and non-scholarship institutions, this recruiting is essential to the economic viability of the institution.
Whenever an institution establishes a women's team, hires a coach, offers scholarship incentives or gives the coach funds to recruit incoming female students, there is no scenario where the coach comes back to the institution saying that he or she could not find any women with the interest or ability to play on the team.
The Double Standard
There is also a double standard inherent in the application of an ""interest and ability"" requirement for girls and women in athletics. No such standard has ever been imposed for men. For men, there is an assumption of interest.
If a men's sport is unsuccessful, there is no presumption of lack of ability or interest. Rather, the coach is blamed for being an unsuccessful teacher and motivator, his employment is terminated and a new and often better paid coach is obtained.
The opposite treatment occurs in a women's sport. Usually, a low paid coach is retained and the team is given a poor practice time and inadequate facilities. If few women stay with the program or come out for the team, the conclusion drawn is ""lack of interest"". If a women's team is unsuccessful, the conclusion drawn is ""lack of ability"" rather than lack of support on the part of the institution or lack of ability on the part of the coach.
If women's teams are provided with the same quality coaches, practice times, facilities, equipment and other benefits as men's teams, women athletes will participate.
No Economic Defense for Discrimination
One of the arguments against gender equity in sport has been that there simply isn't enough money to provide such opportunity. That simply isn't true. There are three competitive divisions within the NCAA: Divisions I, II and III. Division I is further broken down into Division IA, the big-time football schools, Division IAA, lower emphasis on football and IAAA, no football but major basketball programs. Each division differs based on how many scholarships they can offer and the amount of money they spend on intercollegiate athletics. Except for Division III (non-scholarship schools), every institution can come into compliance with Title IX simply by changing competitive divisions to one level below their current division designation. That change would free up enough new money to transfer to the support of women's sports to realize Title IX compliance. Institutions simply are unwilling to make those choices. Staying in their current competitive division is a ""status thing"" for their men's sport program that they are unwilling to give up.
A smokescreen argument is that providing opportunities for our daughters will somehow kill the sport of football -- a misperception created by coaches who are paranoid over the possibility of making budget cuts in college football to fund equal opportunity for women in sports. The accusing finger is pointed at the victims, women who have less than 33% of all athletic participation opportunities, 33% of all scholarship dollars, 24% of sport budgets and 18% of recruiting budgets. ""If it weren't for them,"" the coaches say, ""we wouldn't need to cut back on football scholarships. If we weaken the golden goose of football, which supports all of the men's and women's non revenue-producing sports, we'll end up with no athletic program.""
Rather than believe this inflammatory rhetoric, let's take a clear and rational look at the facts:
Fact: At about 80% of all NCAA member institutions, football does not pay for women's sports or even itself.
Fact: Among the supposedly lucrative big-time football programs in Division I-A, 33% are running deficit programs averaging $1,020,000 losses annually.
Fact: 95% of Division I-AA football programs are running deficits averaging $664,000 per year.
Fact: 32% of all Division I-A men's basketball programs run annual deficits averaging $226,000 dollars a year.
Fact: 81% of all other Division I men's basketball programs run annual deficits of close to $270,000 per year.
There are no golden geese. There are only fat geese eating the food that could fund additional athletic opportunities for women. Intercollegiate men's football and basketball programs have fallen victim to excess. The ""beat the Joneses"" mentality has fueled an expenditure war that has resulted in country club locker rooms, indoor football practice facilities (for an outdoor sport that is only allowed to practice from August to December and for 15 days in the spring), expensive videotape production and editing facilities, first class hotel accommodations on the night before home football games, elaborate training tables and team meeting facilities and coaches and athletic directors who spend much of their off-season time playing golf in the very best clubs doing ""business"" with alumni, at the expense of their athletic budgets. Our best football and basketball coaches get double or triple the salaries of college presidents and Nobel prize winners and their assistant coaches receive more than a school's very best teachers.
What are the Solutions?
The cry for equal opportunity in women's sport has not created a financial catastrophe. Rather, it has been a catalyst that has focused public attention on the financial and other excesses of men's sports. Despite the fact that Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act required that all secondary and post-secondary schools provide equal opportunity athletic programs by 1978, progress to date clearly sends the message that sport participation is more important for our sons than it is for our daughters. Unless we want to fight the battle of gender equity in the courts, giving precious dollars to lawyers instead of opportunities for our children, we must begin a considered approach to creating gender equity.
Unfortunately, especially in these difficult financial times, our schools do not have the new revenue sources to increase athletic participation by 33% in order to give women equal opportunities in sport while keeping men's sports at the status quo. Neither is there one easy solution to the dilemma of gender equity. We must begin with a philosophy of what is important. If we don't want to eliminate athletic participation opportunities for men in high school or college, we must begin the process of (1) developing new revenue sources and (2) cost-cutting in all sports and transferring savings to the support of women's sports.
Our agenda for action should be as follows:
1. Work to maximize fundraising, sponsorship and gate receipt revenues in all sports programs.
The failure to develop women's sports as revenue producers is no longer acceptable. According to a 1990 NCAA study, there are at least 13 women's programs in Division I that bring in $1.3 million or more per year in revenues and twice that number earning $450,000 or more. Yet, there is a persistent attitude among athletic directors (84% of whom are male) that there is no value to women's sports. This attitude and lack of commitment leaves much-needed dollars on the table.
Similarly, there are real revenue possibilities in all sports even if they hold limited possibilities as spectator sports. Alumni giving back, booster groups, proceeds from summer camps and other fund-generating avenues must all be explored. Often, it is much easier to endow a tennis or golf scholarship program through major gifts than it is to earn gate receipts.
If we step back and take a broad view of our sport ""business"" operations, we will find that we have ""put all of our eggs into one or two baskets"" -- football and basketball at most schools. Good business mandates a diversification of our product line. We must constantly develop new products and put them into the marketplace, hedging against a fickle spectating public or poor win-loss record. We need to keep our football and basketball programs strong while we explore the possibilities of other revenue sources.
2. Reduce administrative and other expenses that do not directly affect the student-athlete.
We can no longer expend $25,000 to recruit one student-athlete to a basketball team. Recruiting budgets of half a million dollars or more can no longer be afforded. Steps have been taken in recent years to reduce recruiting expenses. We must go further and the NCAA must lead this reform. The interinstitutional nature of intercollegiate athletics demands that everyone follow the same rules and recruiting limitations so no one institution has unfair advantage.
College presidents must sign disarmament treaties. Over the past 10 years, athletics budgets have grown at a pace double and triple that of inflation. We have seen a proliferation of clerical and administrative personnel and the cost of benefit programs and operating expenses associated with their work. Personnel costs are the number one expense in collegiate athletics. We must follow the example of private industry when faced with declining profits: pare down expensive staffs. Create a lean and mean infrastructure.
The NCAA has taken a first step of putting a cap on coaching positions. If we eliminate the labor and time intensive off-campus recruiting system, we will be able to institute more cuts in many sports.
Similarly, athletics cannot continue this game of ""beating the Joneses"" in building grander locker rooms, weight rooms, practice facilities and athlete academic facilities. Granted, it will be difficult if not impossible to do this by virtue of national legislation. The NCAA cannot begin to design legislation to halt this game. However, this task can be accomplished at the conference level. Eight to 10 college presidents can grapple with these issues. If every major conference made a commitment to Presidential review of cost escalation activities, we would surprise ourselves at what could be accomplished.
3. Reduce the standard of living of the men's sports when athlete and coach benefits clearly do not affect the student-athlete experience.
Do we really need to keep the football team in a hotel the night before a Saturday home game and provide them with a $25 dinner and $15 breakfast? Do we really need magnificant computer rooms and study facilities reserved just for athletes and not open to the rest of the campus community? Even at smaller schools, there are one or two men's teams who are often singled out for special treatment. An alumni fund provides for a spring trip to Florida to train. The team flies rather than buses to games. Yes, removing these more expensive practices will be a little harder on coaches and players, but it is better to bear hardship than to have to choose between our sons and our daughters.
Do we really need to keep the football team in a hotel the night before a Saturday game and provide them with a $25 dinner and $15 breakfast? Do we really need magnificant computer rooms and study facilities reserved just for athletes and not open to the rest of the campus community? Even at smaller schools, there are one or two men's teams who are often singled out for special treatment. An alumni fund provides for a spring trip to Florida to train. The team flies rather than buses to games. Yes, removing these more expensive practices will be a little harder on coaches and players, but it is better to bear hardship than to have to choose between our sons and our daughters.
4. If we have to cut sports opportunities, don't cut men's sports.
One of the most popular ways to achieve gender equity has become cutting men's non-revenue-producing sports like gymnastics and swimming and blaming women's sports in the name of Title IX. These men's sports are cut and the high-on-the-hog standard of living of one or two men's sports like football or basketball are retained. If sports participation is important, it is important for men and women. It is better to establish squad limits than to cut men's team.. Do we really need 125-150 football players? Are 50 ""walk-on"" football players more important than providing the opportunity for women to play on a team at all or other men to play at the varsity level in a different sport? Cutting a walk-on participation slot may be a tough decision but it is better than violating the law and better than cutting an entire men's sport from the program.
At some point, it may be necessary to cut walk-on participation opportunities because for every player reduction achieved in the men's program, it is one less player participation opportunity that must be created for the women's program to achieve gender equity.
Will trimming a football team to 80 or 90 players kill the ""golden goose""? No. The goose will be sleeker and quicker and make more money. Pro football has a 45-player limit with a taxi squad. Doubling that 45 provides more than enough athletes to retain the current quality of the game and to allow for injuries. Right now, most major athletic conferences have rules that limit football travel squads for away games to 65 players.
5. If we have to reduce scholarship budgets, don't reduce the number of athletes we can help or reduce scholarships for athletes who qualify for need-based aid.
Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to adopt a system of need-based aid for athletics. Four factors have prevented the adoption of such proposals: (1) a belief that merit as well as need should be considered in all scholarship programs, (2) concern that the latitude in judgement permitted at the institutional level in the packaging of need-based aid would result in differences in total amounts that would create recruiting advantages, (3) concern that rich institutions would create packages with more nonrepayable grant aid than loans and work study money thereby creating recruiting advantages and (4) eliminating differences in institutional packaging would require an enormously expensive national financial aid administration program, the benefits of which would not exceed its cost.
There is a simple, less expensive way to trim scholarship costs which are the #2 expenditure item in athletic budgets in Divisions I and II. Currently there are two types of NCAA sports with regard to allow financial aid: head count and equivalency. In head count sports, any player receiving any aid, even one dollar, counts as one full scholarship against the team limit of 95 (soon to be 85) in football and 15 (soon to be 13) in basketball. The head count system is used in football and basketball in men's sports and basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics in women's sports. This system has resulted in most players on a team benefitting from a ""full ride"" scholarship that provides tuition, required fees, room, board and books even though there is considerable variance in athletic ability between the starter and the bench sitter.
All other men's and women's sports are equivalency sports in which the total number of scholarships allowed for the sport multiplied times the value of a full scholarship can be spread among any number of players. For example, in Division I women's swimming, the limit of 14 full scholarships can be spread among 20 or more athletes. The very best swimmers get full rides and those who aren't as accomplished receive partial scholarships.
If we need to cut scholarship support of student-athletes, let's make all sports use the equivalency system. As is now the case, athletes are allowed to receive need-based aid in addition to athletic aid without the need-based aid counting against athletic scholarship limits in sports other than football and basketball. In football and basketball, need-based aid counts against the sport limit. By using the equivalency principle, we could reduce sport scholarship limits significantly without hurting those student-athletes in greatest need. Dropping football scholarships to 50 or 60 grants in Division I spread among any number of athletes would fund two or three new women's sports. On each team, the best athletes would still receive full scholarships. Lesser skilled athletes would receive partial grants. This is preferable to the current system where the 95th player on a football team (that plays no more than 50 players per game) receives a full grant. The current head count sport system with high numbers of full scholarships encourages stacking the bench. We simply cannot afford the luxury of stacking the bench in this economic climate and when gender equity has not been realized.
In conclusion, there are economically viable solutions to the challenge of complying with Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act. However, administrators who don't wish to comply with Title IX or wish to comply only if they can maintain their standard of living or the standard of living of one or two men's sports, are not interested in seeking or listening to how gender equity can be realized. The Title IX problem is not a matter of finding new money, it is a matter of having the will to redistribute existing resources and to live within a tighter budget.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RECOMMENDED SOURCES
1. 1992-93 NCAA Directory. (1992) Overland Park, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
2. Acosta, R. V. and Carpenter, L. J. (1994). Women in intercollegiate sport:: A longitudinal study-seventeen year update, 1977-1994. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College.
3. Education Amendments of 1972, P. L. 92-318, Title IX-Prohibitions of Sex Discrimination, July 1, 1972 (now codified as 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)).
4. Federal Register. (1979, December 11). 44(239), 71413-71423.
5. Gender Equity Survey. (1992). Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
6. Lopiano, Donna. (1993) Statement of Donna A. Lopiano, Ph.D. Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, U.S. House of Representatives, February 17, 1993.
7. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (1993) Data obtained by telephone from the research department.
8. Otto, L. B., and Alwin, D. F. (1977). Athletics, aspirations and attainments. Sociology of Education, 42,, 101-113.
9. Participation study, 1981-82: Men's and women's sports. (1983). Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
10. Participation study, 1991-92: Men's and women's sports. (1993). Overland Park, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
11. Raiborn, Mitchell H. (1986). Revenues and expenses of intercollegiate athletics programs: Analysis of financial trends and relationships 1981-85. Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
12. Raiborn, Mitchell H. (1990). Revenues and expenses of intercollegiate athletics programs: Analysis of financial trends and relationships 1985-89. Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
13. Survey of NCAA member institutions on the elimination and addition of sports. (1988). Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
14. Title IX: More races to run. (1981, May 20). Christian Science Monitor, pp. 17-20.
15. Uhlir, G. A. (1987). Athletics and the university: The post-woman's era. Academe, 73,(4),pp. 25-29. .
16. Uhlir, G. A. (1984). For whom the dollars toll. Journal of the National Association of Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 47(2), pp. 13-22.
17. United States Department of Education. (1990) Digest of Educational Statistics. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
18. Women's Sports Foundation, The Wilson Report: