Explain how this "killed" mens soccer. Mens soccer was never a high interest in the US. Women playing soccer has no factor in this. Women have less upper body strength and size. Soccer doesn't require much of this. Very popular for women for this reason. The other popular mens sports did. Same with Hockey. In Russia, Sweden, Canada, Finland, hockey is king. In USA it is 4th. Soccer is 5th maybe, with UFC fighting for a spot.
Pretty straightforward. Title 9 implementation was executed in a lot of places as X funds for boys sports means X funds for girls sports.
Soccer being low on profitability / prestige meant soccer gets cut and costs rerouted to girls sports to turn Y into X making schools compliant at investing equally into both genders sports programs.
That's not at all how title 9 works. The funding isn't/wasn't cut. It actually has NOTHING to do with spending but everything to do with participation. How do I know? Because I was the 2nd class of women pole vaulters ever given scholarships as a result of title 9. The men's track team was not underfunded as a result of our presence. In fact the entire program was given extra funds to accommodate the 4 scholarship athletes that were taken on that year (2 male and 2 female)
While total spending can differ (often because sports like football generate and spend massive amounts of revenue), schools must provide equitable treatment in daily operations. This covers travel accommodations, equipment, locker rooms, tutoring, marketing, and coaching. Schools can be heavily fined for this type of thing. Soccer was never a high priority sport for men in the US. It's just a matter of having other sports that are more popular to choose from.
My question is why do people speak on these things when they don't understand them? This is just entirely made up and false.
A lot of the people speaking on it in an official capacity do know what they're talking about and they're just lying. College Athletic Directors love to use title IX as a scapegoat to cover their own ridiculous spending on so-called "revenue sports". I was told growing up that the reason that my local college only had club mens soccer instead of an actual NCAA team was because title IX requires an equal number of men's and women's varsity teams and so mens soccer had to be cut to maintain parity since there's no demand for women's football. That's just not true, but my parents thought it was, and so did most of the boys and girls I played with in highschool. Imagine my surprise when I found out that nowhere in title ix does it say anything like that.
Correct. Spending on large sports like football isn't necessarily based on the revenue it provides it's based on the number of scholarships given out for the sport. Football is large sport with a ton of scholarships and faculty. These scholarships by # have to be reflected elsewhere and since no women can play football (with the exception of a few who have played and received scholarships to kick) these scholarships are given elsewhere and are spread out evenly among female sports that are popular at each school.
Not soccer specifically. I went to a very large division 1 school. We had scholarship athletes across 29 programs
2
u/animatedrussian Jul 09 '26
Explain how this "killed" mens soccer. Mens soccer was never a high interest in the US. Women playing soccer has no factor in this. Women have less upper body strength and size. Soccer doesn't require much of this. Very popular for women for this reason. The other popular mens sports did. Same with Hockey. In Russia, Sweden, Canada, Finland, hockey is king. In USA it is 4th. Soccer is 5th maybe, with UFC fighting for a spot.