and it's bad and wrong. In short, they suggest that NIL payments from schools are like any other "aid" and must be shared equally among the genders. If it sticks, it would mean the whole "spend 80% on football and men's bball" idea will not work. And I can't even imagine the issues created by sharing 50% with the ladies and then spending all 50% for men on football and a little on basketball. Male athletes would get screwed for being male.
Anyway, this is a big deal but many are not worried quite yet because it's likely to either be withdrawn (Cruz has already suggested that) or challenged in court where it would likely fail. But it is interesting issue to come up with a few months before the House hearing.
By the way, this does not necessarily impact House, as the deal has no terms of how the schools are to spend their "cap" money and contains no NIL rules or expectations. So legally I don't see an issue. I do think there could be a practical issue though. If the NCAA/teams had planned to spend cap mostly on revenue generating sports and now will have to match what they spend on those with female athletes, it will create massive issues. That is especially true when the caps fall.
Finally, if you do the X/Twitter thing, Mit Winter is a GREAT follow.
