that the defendant is either a direct or indirect recipient of federal funds. See generally NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S.Ct. 924, 142 L.Ed.2d 929 (1999); U.S. Dept. of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597, 106 S.Ct. 2705, 91 L.Ed.2d 494 (1986); Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984). In this case, however, there is no evidence that the MHSAA is either a direct or indirect recipient of federal funds. First, the MHSAA does not receive any direct assistance from the federal government. Second, the MHSAA receives the bulk of its funding from gate receipts generated at MHSAA-sponsored tournaments. Based upon this evidence, the MHSAA is neither a direct nor indirect recipient of federal funds. See generally Smith, 119 S.Ct. at 929-930 (<HOLDING>); Horner v. Kentucky High School Athletic
holding that kentucky high school athletic association was an indirect recipient of federal funds because it was created by state law its functions were determined by the kentucky board of education and it received dues from member schools who received federal funds holding that ohio high school athletic association was not a recipient of federal funds because it did not receive direct federal assistance and it did not receive money from local schools who were recipients of federal assistance holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds holding that kentucky high school athletic associa tion qualified as agent of the state and as recipient of federal funds so as to be subject to title ix when association received dues from member schools which received federal funds holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds