Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Criticism of Biediger v. Quinnipiac University and the Rejection of Competitive Cheer as a Title IX Eligible Sport

Over on Saving Sports, the official blog of the College Sports Council which advocates reform of Title IX, Eric McErlain argues on behalf of competitive cheer qualifying as a Title IX sport. He also takes issue with U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill's recent opinion in Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, where Quinnipiac was ordered to keep it's women's volleyball team in order to comply with Title IX. McErlain contends that the lack of international and professional competitions for competitive cheer should not impair competitive cheer's chances for Title IX recognition since similar opportunties for softball are on the decline as well (and Eric cites Holly Vietzke post on our blog titled Is Softball on Life Support?). Eric also notes:
Despite Judge Underhill's ruling, female student athletes have already decided on their own that competitive cheer is a sport. As of the 2008-09 academic year, competitive cheer was more popular with female student athletes in the nation's high schools than golf, field hockey, lacrosse or gymnastics. Overall, it is the ninth most popular sport for female high school students.
For an additional reading critical of Judge Underhill's analysis, see this column from Gregg Easterbrook on


Thanks for the update on this. Meanwhile, flying under the radar, is the emerging sport of women's sand volleyball. Can't wait...

Anonymous Anonymous -- 8/01/2010 11:57 AM  

Wow. Easterbrook really had some good points. Makes you feel like the government and the courts have too much power now and it has run amok. I'm wondering what Monty Python sketch he's referring to in the piece.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 8/01/2010 1:21 PM  

As soon as i saw the headline i couldn't wait to get to start reading the comments.

Thank you all so much for your comments and support

Great resource for educators as well!


Anonymous melinda -- 8/02/2010 1:13 AM  

Thanks for this overview. I think one important take-a-way which has flown under the radar is the Judge's assertion that a 3.62% difference between the percentage of women athletes and the percentage of women in the student body was too significant.

As many athletic department face a budget crunch, the small 3.62% proportionality figure makes it all the more likely a non-revenue men's program will be cut.

Anonymous Anthony R. Ten Haagen, Esq. - Preti Sports Law -- 8/09/2010 3:38 PM  

Post a Comment