On Monday soccer dad and assistant US attorney Eric Johnson brought his Title IX complaint before a federal judge who will rule today (this article says next week, though) on whether to issue a temporary restraining order against the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association to keep girls' soccer in the southern part of the state a sanctioned winter sport.
The argument Johnson made in court yesterday is based on his belief that moving girls' soccer to the fall (which schools could choose to do or they could keep it in the winter as an unsanctioned or club sport) would permanently remove a girls' sport from the winter slate of sports and thus create an unequal number of opportunities. But, as I have said before, Title IX does not require an equal amount of sports in any given season--it doesn't even require an equal number of girls' and boys' sports overall.
I am quite befuddled as to how this case actually made it to court. If anyone involved, Johnson, the judge, the NIAA knew anything about Title IX they would know Johnson's claims are bogus. A real Title IX suit would contend that the school is not providing equitable opportunities. But such a claim would not help Johnson--or rather his daughter who plays both soccer and volleyball, which are traditionally played in the fall. Removing soccer entirely could indeed be a Title IX violation, but moving it to another season, while preserving the number of opportunities provided to girls, is not.
The NIAA is worried about how much money it is spending on this case. They are liable for plaintiffs' legal costs if the temporary restraining order and injunction are put into place. If anyone knew what was what, Johnson would have to pay NIAA's costs for bringing such a frivolous case.