the Court believes that it must analyze two questions to resolve Defendants’ motions relating to Title IX. First, as a matter of law, is the exercise of controlling authority over a federally funded program sufficient to trigger Title IX? Second, is there a genuine issue of material fact as to whether local Michigan school districts have ceded controlling authority over interscholastic athletics to the MHSAA, such that the MHSAA effectively controls those athletic programs? Each of these issues will be addressed in turn. A. Legal Question Turning first to the legal question, few courts have considered whether exercising “controlling authority” over a federally funded activity is sufficient to subject an entity to Title IX. See generally Cureton v. NCAA, 37 F.Supp.2d 687 (E.J.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>) rev’d Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3rd
holding in part that the ncaa was subject to title vi because it exercised controlling authority over athletic programs receiving federal financial assistance holding that despite the parties failure to address a controlling statute wle consider the statutes effect on this case sua sponte because it is controlling and it would be contrary to public policy to decline to do so holding that title ix subjects state athletic association to suit under the theory that association controls athletic programs receiving federal aid holding that the ncaa did not exercise controlling authority over school athletic programs holding that federal programs that require uniform application necessitate formulation of controlling federal rules