Bill Overview
Title: Fair Play for Women Act
Description: This bill addresses issues concerning sex discrimination in sports. For example, the bill prohibits intercollegiate athletic associations from engaging in certain acts of sex discrimination, including discrimination through (1) the rules it sets for intercollegiate athletics; (2) the facilities, amenities, and goods or services provided for competitions; or (3) the distribution of revenues or other benefits. The bill also requires institutions of higher education to periodically report to the Department of Education certain data related to men's and women's sports programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]
Target Audience
Population: Student-athletes participating in organized intercollegiate athletics
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill targets issues of sex discrimination in sports, specifically intercollegiate athletics.
- It affects student-athletes at institutions of higher education that participate in intercollegiate athletics.
- It also impacts intercollegiate athletic associations, which include various national and regional sports governing bodies.
- According to the NCAA, there are approximately 500,000 student-athletes participating in college sports in the United States.
- Globally, the concept of intercollegiate athletics primarily applies to countries with well-established collegiate sports structures, like Canada and a few others in Western Europe and Asia, but on a much smaller scale compared to the U.S.
Reasoning
- The target population is relatively large, with about 500,000 student-athletes involved in college sports in the U.S.
- Budget constraints suggest the policy's implementation will vary in impact, affecting some institutions more than others based on current resource allocations and compliance levels.
- The diversity of collegiate sports across regions means differing levels of initial gender equality, thus varying potential benefits from the policy.
- While not every student-athlete will experience direct changes, those involved in lesser-funded women's programs may see significant improvements.
- The policy could also affect institutions by way of increased administrative duties regarding reporting, which might impact perceptions among staff and athletes alike.
Simulated Interviews
student-athlete (California)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will bring better funding and facilities for women's sports.
- Currently, there are clear disparities between men's and women's programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
student-athlete (Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is beneficial, but our program is already well-funded.
- I don't expect much change personally, but I support fair play for women.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
student-athlete (Texas)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, this means increased support and resources for our team, which really needs it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
student-athlete (Ohio)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about how the costs of compliance might affect lower revenue sports like baseball.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
student-athlete (New York)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve visibility and support for women's sports, which is much needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
student-athlete (Illinois)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see if this policy brings more attention and funding to our sport.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
graduate assistant (Massachusetts)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is demanding in terms of compliance, which can be stressful for staff, but it is a step towards equality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
student-athlete (North Carolina)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our men's program is pretty equal, I hope all sports get equal resources now, including women's.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student-athlete (Arizona)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think our program will see much change; our funding and balance are already good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student-athlete (Georgia)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more opportunities and fairness for our team, which is thrilling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary funding costs are administrative, related to compliance, and enforcement.
- Potential benefits include increased equity in collegiate sports, possibly leading to long-term societal gains.
- Lack of clear offsets could be stretched within existing programs without new funding legislations.