Football & Title IX - a Battle with Long History

I know that here is a conflict between big-time college sports and the compliance of Title IX after participating our class debate and reading some materials, especially in Football. Accidently, I read a related article and it will help us having a deeper understanding of the history of this issue.

 

In May 1974 a couple of powerful Texans who feared Title IX's impact on revenue-producing sports-Republican senator John Tower and Texas football coach and athletic director Darrell Royal, soon-to-be president of the American Football Coaches Association-planned an assault on the two-year-old law. Royal and Longhorns NCAA faculty representative J. Neils Thompson helped draft the Tower Amendment, which would exempt football and men's basketball from Title IX compliance determinations. Royal feared the law would "eliminate, kill or seriously weaken the programs we have in existence." Its mandates, Tower said, would throw "the baby"-costly but profitable football-"out with the bathwater." For good measure, NCAA executive director Walter Byers added a formulation as alarmist as it was redundant: "Impending doom is around the corner.

 

What accounts for Title IX's invincibility? Gender-equity advocate Donna Lopiano, who had testified against exempting revenue sports while serving as the Longhorns' women's athletic director, credits those federal regulations, now enforced by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. It's no small irony that Texas hombres hoping to torpedo legislation unwittingly helped bulletproof it. "I've been an expert witness in 30 lawsuits and rarely had to offer a debatable opinion," Lopiano says. "I'd depend on my knowledge of the OCR regulations and the courts' inclination to defer to agency regs if they exist. By an accident of history, the Bible was written when Christ was born."

 

Source: A. Wolff, (2012). Winning at Political Football: The legislation’s staying power is the direct result of an attempt to dismantle it. Sports Illustrated, 116 (19), 59-60.

 

 

Liguang ‘Larry’ Ding

Kin 577

Sport and politics?

The sport industry in the United States is a wealthy and high priority sector and it is no secret that sport organizations have a tremendous amount of influence on consumers, and on society as a whole. However, some of the money flowing into these behemoth organizations is being used for completely non-sport related endeavors. Is this appropriate and what short and long-term intentions underlie the expenditures? A recent article posted on www.thepostgame.com references the amount of money used towards government lobbying by big-time American sports. The NFL spent more than $6.1 million in 2011 on internal and outside lobby groups. Other organizations who spent a significant amount on lobbying include Major League Baseball (2^nd at $520,000), the Ultimate Fighting Championship (3^rd at $410,000), and the U.S. Olympic Committee (4^th at $360,000). Issues being lobbied included immigration and customs, drug testing, amateur sports, community programs, and tax issues.

What issues are these organizations so interested in? First Street Research reports that a majority of sports lobbying efforts go towards player safety, drug testing, internet gambling, and broadcasting, all of which seem relevant. A majority of the UFC’s lobby spending goes towards eradicating illegal online downloads and online streaming, which makes sense because the availability of streaming live fight events usually means less physical attendance. However, a portion of the NFLs funds went towards lobbying the Federal Aviation Commission to allow the use of drones in U.S. Airspace. Say what? How is THIS relevant?

Lobbying often has a negative stigma, and is perceived as entities with a large amount of power corrupting the law (arm twisting) in order to serve their own interest. However, it could also be viewed as these entities defending others’ interests against corruption and making sure that minority interests are protected. Sport organizations seem to be fighting for issues that directly affect them and their teams, but should they even be able to influence the government? We depend on the government to design and uphold a rule structure which maintains the integrity of the sport industry. We depend on drug testing laws to reveal who the “cheaters” are. We depend on athlete immigration laws to reveal which teams are so desperate for a winning athlete that they will take them from a foreign country. If sport organizations are able to influence the legislators who design these laws, they are able to tweak the system to their best interest. However, it goes both ways. Lobbying by sport may be an attempt to tweak unfair or unjust rules, in the interest of their athletes.

Furthermore, why is the NFL lobbying the FAC to allow the use of drones in Airspace? Turns out, a few unmanned drones flew over a Giants versus Patriots game for security purposes, and the NFL probably believes that this should be important for high-profile football games. It makes sense, but it still seems odd.

Should sports and politics mix? If sports gain lobbying headway, what type of influence will they exert in the future? Will there be power abuse issues in the future?

Article referenced:

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201205/nfl-spends-big-washington-lobbyists-drones-planes

Gisele Schaaf – LT 22

KIN 577

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/skechers-pay-40-million-toning-shoe-claims/story?id=16359254#.T7R6zuu865U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erhbn3ElJVo

I happen to come across this article concerning Skechers Shape-Ups, and how they are paying $40 million to settle a law suit that accuses them of false advertisement. Shape-ups "would help people lose weight, build muscle and get in shape." Whether or not these claims are true or not, I feel that the underlying issue is that Skechers advertisements uses socially constructed views of what it beautiful to not only sell their shoes, but more importantly adds to the idea that women have to look a certain way to fit into what society constructs as "beautiful" and "sexy". Yes, these shoes are suppose to get you into shape, but when Skechers have celebrities like Kim Kardashian as a spokes model in a submissive commercial, it not only suggest that without really working out you're gonna look like Kim Kardashian but also reestablishes that women that want to "look sexy" have to look like Kim. And this is not what I believe at all. I feel that being sexy is not defined by how thin, how toned, or how curvaceous your body is, but how confident and comfortable you feel in the body that you have. As a society, we lose site of what really matters because we are so drowned by how we look, and what people think of us. I believe one major factor in this way of thinking is the society we live in. Our society is run by media, and what is seen on media is sex because it sells and it is implanted in our minds that we are suppose to look that way because that's all that we see. The submissive factor of this ad was another issue that I found a problem with. Why is it sexy to be seen as submissive? I have no clue, but that's a topic for another blog.

Natasha Nguyen 

Kin 338I

Wednesday 4-6:45