Report on the House v. NCAA Settlement and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent analysis of the House v. NCAA settlement reveals significant conflicts with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning gender equality and reduced inequalities. The proposed distribution model for the $2.78 billion in back damages, which allocates 90 percent of funds to football and men’s basketball players, is based on historical revenue generation. However, this report argues that such a model perpetuates past discriminatory practices that systematically suppressed the economic potential of women’s sports, thereby contravening the principles of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Analysis of Systemic Disparities and Contradiction with SDGs

Violation of SDG 5: Gender Equality

The proposed settlement framework fails to address the historical and systemic barriers that have limited the financial growth of women’s athletics, thereby reinforcing gender-based economic disparity. This directly undermines the objectives of SDG 5, which aims to end all forms of discrimination against women and girls.

• Discrepancy in Media Rights: The NCAA’s negotiation practices have created a vast revenue gap.
  1. In 2010, the men’s March Madness tournament media rights were sold to CBS/Turner for $771 million annually.
  2. In 2011, the women’s tournament rights were not put to competitive bid but were extended with ESPN for approximately $6 million annually, less than 1% of the men’s contract value.
• Restrictive Sponsorship Structures: The NCAA’s partnership agreements have actively hindered the ability of women’s sports to secure independent sponsorships.
  • CBS/Turner holds exclusive rights to negotiate corporate sponsorships for all 90 NCAA championships, despite only broadcasting the men’s basketball tournament.
  • Sponsorship of any NCAA championship is contingent upon first sponsoring the men’s March Madness tournament, with entry-level costs estimated at $7 million. This structure limits the pool of potential sponsors and depletes funds that could otherwise be allocated to women’s and other sports.

Contravention of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The settlement’s revenue distribution formula exacerbates existing economic inequalities between different groups of student-athletes. By rewarding sports based on revenue generated under a discriminatory system, the model fails to promote the inclusive economic participation central to SDG 10.

• The financial success of men’s basketball was institutionally engineered, while the potential of other sports, including women’s basketball, was systematically suppressed.
• Penalizing current female athletes and athletes in men’s Olympic sports for the NCAA’s historical neglect of their sports’ commercial value is a direct continuation of inequitable practices.

Legal Framework and Institutional Justice (SDG 16)

Title IX and Legal Challenges

The settlement’s proposed distribution is being challenged on legal grounds, citing violations of Title IX, which mandates equal opportunity and benefits in educational institutions receiving federal funding. This legal scrutiny aligns with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which advocates for the rule of law and accountable institutions.

• Title IX requires that financial assistance tied to athletics be provided equitably between genders.
• The argument posits that the settlement, in its current form, violates this federal law.
• Two groups of female athletes have already filed legal challenges against the settlement’s terms, seeking a more just and equitable resolution.

Recommendations for an Equitable Framework

To align with principles of fairness and sustainable development, an alternative distribution model is proposed.

• Proportional Distribution: Back damages and future revenue should be distributed in proportion to the number of male and female athletes, similar to the methodology used for athletic financial aid.
• Institutional Responsibility: Universities, particularly those in power conferences, are urged to adopt equitable distribution models voluntarily. Failure to do so may result in court-mandated revisions, requiring the retraction of financial commitments made under the current discriminatory model.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article’s central theme is the systemic discrimination against female athletes in college sports. It details how institutional practices by the NCAA have created and perpetuated significant disparities in revenue, media rights, and financial compensation between men’s and women’s sports, directly addressing the goal of achieving gender equality.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article focuses on the unequal distribution of economic benefits, specifically the “$2.78 billion” settlement from the House v. NCAA case. The proposed formula, which gives “90 percent” of the funds to male athletes, is presented as a mechanism that widens the economic inequality between different groups of athletes based on gender and sport, a core concern of SDG 10.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The discussion about revenue sharing and back damages for college athletes treats their participation as a form of labor deserving of fair compensation. The article’s critique of the settlement’s distribution formula relates to the principle of “equal pay for work of equal value,” arguing that the value of women’s sports has been artificially suppressed, leading to unfair compensation.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

  The article critiques the NCAA as an institution, accusing it of creating a system where “men’s basketball [was set up] to succeed financially — and every other sport to fail.” It highlights a lack of accountability and transparency. Furthermore, it invokes legal frameworks like Title IX and notes that “two groups of female athletes have challenged the settlement,” pointing to the need for justice and the enforcement of non-discriminatory laws through strong institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

   The article directly addresses this target by arguing that the proposed settlement “uses past discrimination against women athletes to justify future discrimination.” It details how the NCAA’s historical actions, such as undervaluing media rights for women’s basketball, constitute a form of systemic economic discrimination.

2. Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality.

   This target is relevant as the article references Title IX, which “requires schools to provide equal opportunity and benefits to men and women.” The author argues that the settlement violates this law and calls on schools to adopt equitable distribution policies, such as sharing funds “in proportion to the number of athletes of each gender.”

3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   The article critiques the NCAA’s “discriminatory” policies, such as bundling media rights and creating sponsorship rules that disadvantage women’s sports. The proposed 90/10 split of the settlement fund is identified as a policy that perpetuates “inequalities of outcome.” The author advocates for eliminating these practices to ensure equal opportunity.

4. Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.

   The debate over the settlement is framed as a matter of fair compensation for athletes’ labor. The article challenges the premise that revenue generation is a fair measure of value when that revenue has been “suppressed” by discriminatory practices. The call for a more equitable distribution of the “$2.78 billion” in back damages is an argument for a fairer valuation and payment for the work of female athletes.

5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article implicitly calls for a more accountable and transparent NCAA. It describes how the organization “didn’t put the women’s basketball rights up for a competitive bid” and structured media and sponsorship deals in a way that was not transparent and actively harmed the financial potential of women’s sports.

6. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

   The author’s assertion that “the House settlement violates the law” (Title IX) and the mention of legal challenges by female athletes are direct calls to enforce existing non-discriminatory laws. The article advocates for the legal system to intervene to ensure policies are fair and non-discriminatory.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of revenue and settlement funds distributed to female vs. male athletes: The article provides a clear indicator of inequality by stating that “90 percent of the $2.78 billion in back damages” is mandated to go to male-dominated sports. A change in this proportion would be a direct measure of progress.
• Value of media rights contracts for men’s vs. women’s sports: The article provides specific figures that serve as indicators of disparity: the men’s March Madness deal was for “$771 million per year,” while the women’s was for “$6 million per year.” Closing this gap would indicate progress.
• Institutional policies on revenue distribution: The article mentions that “many colleges are planning to use this [90/10] formula for revenue distribution going forward.” Tracking the number of schools that adopt this model versus a more equitable one, such as distribution “in proportion to the number of athletes of each gender,” would be a key indicator.
• Number of legal challenges and their outcomes: The fact that “two groups of female athletes have challenged the settlement” is an indicator of action against perceived injustice. The outcomes of these court cases would serve as an indicator of the enforcement of non-discriminatory laws like Title IX.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news-gazette.com