No, There is Not "Unmet Interest" Whenever a Sports Team Sues its College After Being Cut

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Apr 17, 2019 | 0 Comments

Another sports-related Title IX dispute highlights how the law fails to account for real-world problems that colleges and universities in the U.S. face all the time.

School Disbands Women's Sports Teams, Athletes Sue Under Title IX

This time, the situation developed at the Eastern Michigan University (EMU) in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Facing budget concerns and lack of interest, the college cut four sports from the school, including two women's sports teams – softball and tennis. While the cuts impacted 58 male athletes and 25 female athletes, it was the members of the women's softball and tennis teams who sued the school. They claimed that the cuts took EMU out of compliance with Title IX's mandate that they offer equal athletic opportunities with men at the school.

EMU subsequently reinstated tennis, and proposed to add women's lacrosse. The district court hearing the case, however, refused the proposal and demanded that the school hire a softball coach and reinstate the team, instead.

EMU appealed the district court's order, and the federal appellate court sided with the school, stating that “Title IX requires equality between men's and women's teams, not that certain teams (say women's softball) be reinstated rather than other sports teams be created, supported, or expanded.”

The Three-Part Test Title IX Uses for Sports Issues

Ever since 1979, the Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights has used a three-part test to determine if a college's sports system complied with Title IX's prohibition against sexual discrimination. 44 Fed. Reg. 71413 (1979) requires a school to satisfy at least one of the following:

  1. The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to the enrollment of men and women in the school,
  2. The school has an ongoing history of expanding athletic offerings to the underrepresented sex, or
  3. The school is fully and effectively accommodating the athletic interests of the underrepresented sex.

The “Unmet Interests” Factor

A school can fail the third prong of the test if there is “unmet interest” for a particular sport at the school – this was the core nugget of the claims brought by EMU's softball and tennis teams. Unmet interest also involves three things:

  1. There is unmet interest in a particular sport
  2. The school has the ability to sustain a team in that sport
  3. There is a reasonable expectation that the team would play competitively

An unfortunately powerful insinuation behind a sports-related Title IX claim is that there has to be “unmet interest” every time a sports team files suit: If there wasn't “unmet interest,” there would be no lawsuit.

That simply is not the case in real life.

Athletes are emotionally invested in their teams, putting them in a poor position to gauge whether their squad is sustainable in the future. Needless to say, it is the school that is in the best position to determine whether the team is worth maintaining, based on future budgetary considerations, scouting, and the availability of other resources.

Title IX takes the decision-making power away from schools, and the powerful insinuation that there is unmet interest whenever a team sues under Title IX puts some of that power in the very people who are least capable of seeing the big picture.

National Title IX Advisor Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a national Title IX advisor who often represents students accused of sexual misconduct on campus. Contact him online or call his law office at (888) 535-3686.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he has sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address school-related issues and concerns anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website.  In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County.  In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County,  In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties.  Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law.  The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship.  The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.