Should men’s sports programs be cut from schools because of rules like Title Nine?

Kyle Brill, Staff Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Title Nine. The title states that regardless of gender, all people should have an equal opportunity to play sports in college. That indicates that the number of athletes and scholarships must be the same for both women and men. When the title was originally created, it was great because  more people were able to participate in collegiate sports.

Although there are benefits,  there also is a downside. Men’s sports, such as soccer, volleyball, swimming, track and field and many others, were all being cut from schools to allow an even number of women’s sports to take place, or simply because the schools didn’t have enough money to fund both. Football, which can have a team size of over 50 players, is an all-male sport, meaning that there are many scholarships from other sports teams being cut because they are being distributed to football players, instead. Such cuts reduce scholarship chances by nearly half for the men in sports other than football.

Is this really fair? Should football be included in Title Nine? My answer is no. Title Nine should still exist, but with the exclusion of all-male and all-female  sports. These sports should be left in their own category, while sports that include programs for both genders can still be included in Title Nine.

Unless this change occurs, male athletes trying to get into college through sports will have as much as a 40% lower chance of getting a scholarship than female athletes. Overall, Title Nine was made with great intentions, but times have changed and it needs to be rewritten.