By Jennifer Grabowski
The College Sports Council (CSC), an advocate for men’s minor sports programs at colleges and universities around the country, took another swing at raising awareness this spring when it released a study that highlighted the inequity of scholarships between men’s and women’s soccer programs.
Along the way it apparently picked a fight with the Women’s Sports Foundation.
The CSC noted specifically that the number of men’s programs peaked during the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, the number of women’s programs increased by 123 teams.
The WSF’s response was swift and to the point, claiming the CSC “released another misleading report.”
The Foundation challenged the statistics, arguing that “the premise of comparing any one sport with another is faulty and contrary to the law; the law requires balance within the entire sports department.”
The WSF agreed that there are about 2,000 more female soccer student-athletes. However, the distribution in Division III soccer programs is not balanced between male and female. In 2009 there were 9,803 female soccer student-athletes compared to 11,075 male soccer student-athletes.
Though the WSF points out the unequal distribution in Division III soccer programs they did not mention the favorable unequal distribution in Division I soccer programs. In the 2008-09 academic year there were 8,117 female DI soccer athletes compared to 5,607 male DI soccer athletes.
The WSF’s position center on the law as spelled out by Title IX. It notes that the law “compares overall sports program opportunities, scholarships and benefits for both genders.”
The law does state that it is an overall comparison of benefits for both genders but the CSC believes it is the law that is flawed and creating problems.
Most universities follow prong one of the three-prong test. It states that the participation in athletic opportunities must be substantially proportionate to the student enrollment; this is known as the “proportionality” test.
Eric Pearson, Chairman of the CSC, said “this study graphically depicts the tremendous disparity of opportunity between male and female soccer players because of Title IX’s gender quota and NCAA policies.”
Men’s NCAA soccer is not the only sport that has declined since Title IX’s introduction.
An astonishing fact was brought up by the CSC’s study. It found only one Division I men’s soccer program in the state of Texas. However, this is not the only male sport that is underrepresented in the largest state in the continental US.
Men’s gymnastics does not have a single Division I program in Texas. In fact, there are only 16 Division I men’s gymnastics teams compared to 64 Division I women’s gymnastics programs.
Continuing with the trend of women’s Division I dominance, the CSC found that 93.1% of DI athletic programs offer women’s soccer, but only 59.2% offer men’s DI soccer programs.
Counterbalancing men’s soccer and gymnastics facts, the WSF also introduced statistics that looked at similar men and women sports, like baseball and softball, which show higher male participation. For the 2009 season there were 9, 710 baseball players and only 5,400 softball players.
Each side has supporting evidence for their position. Women’s rights advocates believe Title IX is fair and without it women will lose support, funding and opportunities. Male supporters believe that Title IX’s proportionality clause takes away male support, funding and opportunities.
Women have the law on their side while men have a growing trend on theirs.
Caught in the middle are athletic directors, who must decide whether to channel a fixed amount of scholarships and other resources to men’s revenue sports, such as football and basketball, or the minor sports that don’t generate as much revenue.
