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: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in intercollegiate sports
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill focuses on intercollegiate athletic associations and institutions of higher education which suggests it will primarily impact college athletes.
- The bill addresses the issue of sex discrimination in sports, implying it will affect both female and male athletes, though with a focus on improving fairness for women.
- Colleges and universities in countries where this legislation applies are directly involved, thus impacting their student body involved in sports.
- The measures for reporting to the Department of Education suggest that educational institutions need to comply with additional administrative work.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly targets intercollegiate athletic associations and institutions of higher education, suggesting that direct impacts will be most profound on college athletes and athletic departments.
- This policy aims to mitigate sex discrimination, which will directly benefit women's sports teams but may also yield adjustments for men's teams to maintain equity.
- Given the focus on college athletics, it's anticipated that operational and reporting changes will be required, mainly impacting administrative processes.
- The budget constraints limit the associated financial resources available for institutions to implement the changes and provide the necessary reporting, which may influence the perceived impact on wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (Athlete) (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is long overdue. The inequality in facilities and resources has been evident, even at our school.
- With this change, I hope to see improvements in our training facilities and the support we receive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
College Athlete (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While fairness is important, I am worried that funding for men's teams might get cut to accommodate these changes.
- I hope they find a balance that doesn't negatively affect men's sports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Athletics Director (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows us to make meaningful strides toward equity in college sports.
- The challenge will be managing the budget effectively to adhere to the new standards without cutting other necessary programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student Athlete (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We have always played second fiddle to men's swimming in terms of resources and opportunities.
- I feel confident that with these changes, there will be more recognition and support for our efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
College Sports Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law introduces a new layer of scrutiny and reporting which will increase our workloads exponentially.
- I am hopeful it will bring about positive change, but additional resources for compliance would alleviate my concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Non-athlete College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a supporter of gender equality in sports, I am thrilled about this development.
- It's crucial to hold institutions accountable to truly create equality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Former College Athlete (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While my career in sports is over, seeing moves towards equity is encouraging.
- I hope this translates to better support systems for athletes post-graduation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Assistant Coach (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help us to push for better facilities and funding for our women's team.
- The long-term impact could be more women continuing to compete in sports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Parent of College Athlete (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've seen my daughter's team receive less support than expected; I hope this policy changes that.
- Our family is optimistic, but we worry about how institutions will prioritize resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Sports Analyst (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant move towards equitable treatment in sports, which is critical for crafting more inclusive narratives in my reports.
- The long-term impact of such policies could influence how young athletes see their futures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $51000000 (Low: $40500000, High: $61500000)
Year 5: $51500000 (Low: $41200000, High: $61800000)
Year 10: $53000000 (Low: $42500000, High: $63500000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $96000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative costs to institutions of higher education will be the largest component due to reporting requirements.
- Ensuring non-discriminatory practices could lead to litigation costs if compliance is not well-managed.
- There might be indirect impacts on college sports revenues depending on the adjustments and compliance methods employed.