Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92-318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, U.S. legislation also identified by the name of its principal author as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. It states (in part) that

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

—Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688

History[link]

Patsy Mink.

Foundation and Hearings[link]

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written in order to end discrimination based on religion, race, color, or national origin, the act also energized the women's rights movement, which had somewhat slowed after women's suffrage in 1920.^[1] While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.^[2]

In 1967, President Johnson issued a series of executive orders in order to make some clarifications. Before these clarifications were made, the National Organization for Women (NOW) persuaded President Johnson to include women in his executive orders.^[1] Most notable is Executive Order 11375, which required all entities receiving federal contracts to end discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment.

In 1969, Bernice Sandler used the executive order to help her fight for her job at the University of Maryland.^[3] She used university statistics showing how female employment at the university had plummeted as qualified women were replaced by men.^[1] Sandler brought her grievance to the Department of Labor's Office for Federal Fair Contracts Compliance where she was encouraged to file a formal complaint. Citing inequalities in pay, rank, admissions and much more, Sandler began to file complaints not only against the University of Maryland but numerous other colleges as well. Working in conjunction with NOW and Women's Equity Action League (WEAL), Sandler filed 269 complaints against colleges and universities.^[1]

In 1970, Sandler joined Representative Edith Green's Subcommittee on Higher Education and sat in on the congressional hearings where women's rights were discussed. It was in the congressional hearings that Green and Sandler first proposed Title IX. An early draft was prepared by Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, with the assistance of Congresswoman Green.^[4] In the hearing there was very little mention of athletics.^[1] Their focus was more specifically on the hiring and employment practices of federally financed institutions. The proposed Title IX created much buzz and gained a lot of support.

Introduction and Enactment[link]

Senator Birch Bayh exercises with Title IX athletes at Purdue University, ca. 1970s.

The first person to introduce Title IX in Congress was its author and chief Senate sponsor, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana.

At the time, Bayh was working on numerous constitutional issues related to women's rights, including the Equal Rights Amendment, to build "a powerful constitutional base from which to move forward in abolishing discriminatory differential treatment based on sex."^[5] As they were having some difficulty getting the ERA out of committee, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was on the floor for reauthorization, and on February 28, 1972, Senator Bayh introduced the ERA's equal education provision as an amendment.^[6]

In his remarks on the Senate floor, Bayh said, "We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a "man's place" on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the "weaker sex" and it is time to change our operating assumptions."^[7]

"While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching," Bayh concluded, "it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work."^[8]

Title IX became law on June 23, 1972.^[9] When President Nixon signed the bill, he spoke mostly about desegregation busing and not at all about educational access for women, which told Senator Bayh that this important moment in so many women's lives may have been lost upon the president.^[5]

Implementation[link]

The wording of Title IX is very brief, requiring specific language and clarifications to be articulated in its implementing regulations. President Nixon directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry this out.^[1]

Concern over how Title IX would affect men's athletics prompted some to look for ways to limit the influence of Title IX, and Senator Bayh spent the next three years keeping watch over HEW to get regulations formulated that carried out its legislative intent of eliminating discrimination in higher education on the basis of sex.^[5] When they were issued in summer 1975 they were contested, and hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities on the discrepancies between the regulations and the law. Implementation by colleges and universities also had to be monitored, although many were working to comply. One such attempt was made in 1974 by Senator John Tower who introduced the Tower Amendment, which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance.^[10] Later that year the Tower Amendment was rejected and the Javits Amendment, proposed by Senator Jacob Javits, stating that the HEW must include “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports^[1]”, was adopted in its place.

In June 1975, HEW published the final regulations detailing how Title IX would be enforced.^[1] The regulations were codified in the Federal Register in Volume 34, Part 106. It wasn't until this step was completed that everyone truly understood the ramifications of Title IX as it would apply to college athletics. Universities receiving Federal financial assistance were given three years to comply with the Title IX regulations.^[9] The NCAA claimed that the implementation of Title IX was illegal. A revised Tower Amendment was proposed and many debates were had^[vague] but Title IX stood.^[1]

In 1979, HEW, under Jimmy Carter's administration, issued further clarifications in its "Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation."^[11][12]

In 1980, HEW was split into two separate agencies in accordance with the Department of Education Organization Act - the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED).^[10] Oversight of Title IX enforcement and implementation was given to ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).^[13]

Further legislation and regulations[link]

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell^[14] in which the Court held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.^[15] The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.^[14] The Department of Education's stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it made many institutions' sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX.^[1] The ruling, however, was short-lived. The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which restored Title IX coverage to every educational institution's programs if the institution receives any federal assistance, whether direct or indirect.^[9]

In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by congresswoman Cardiss Collins, required federally-assisted higher education institutions to disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's teams, as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually.^[10]

On November 24, 2006, the Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level.^[16]

Applicability and compliance[link]

The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements.

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports.^[17]

The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex^[18] and to provide written assurances to the Dept. of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.^[19] With respect to athletic programs, the Dept. of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:^[20]

1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
10. Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

Although the most well-known application of Title IX regards athletics, there are several protections the law specifically delineates. Section 106.40 protects pregnant and parenting students from discrimination based on pregnant status, marital status, or parenthood ^[21]. Their condition must be treated as any other medical condition. Students may not be excluded from any activity based on their condition of pregnancy, parenthood, or marital status. If they attend a separate facility, they must elect to do so voluntarily, and the facility must provide comparable programs.

Three-prong test[link]

HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.^[22]

• "all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
• "male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
• "the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."^[23][24]
• "institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:^[22]

1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

[edit] Litigation after Grove City case

Since Title IX was passed into law there have been many court cases claiming non-compliance. One of the most notable cases is Franklin vs. Gwinnett County, was brought to court in 1992. The decision in this case required that punitive damages should be awarded to plaintiffs when Title IX is intentionally avoided.^[15] In addition, one year later in the Favia vs Indiana University of Pennsylvania the court of appeals ruled that financial difficulties is not an excuse for non-compliance.^[10]

In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University (LSU). In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women's volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men's basketball tournament was funded. Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance and is one of only three NCAA programs that are 100% self funded and that do not accept financial contributions from the university or government.^[25]

In an "unusual" case, Title IX was invoked to justify a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) to Division I FBS (formerly I-A). The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009.^[26] At the time of the vote, WKU was purportedly out of Title IX compliance because it had a disproportionately large number of female scholarship athletes. By upgrading football, it increased the percentage of male athletes on scholarship.^[27] However, the following year, it eliminated its men's soccer team.^[28]

More recently, the Associated Press reported in May 2011 that the Department of Education was investigating the University of Delaware (UD) for potential sex discrimination against men, following a complaint by members of the school's men's cross country and track teams. UD had announced in January 2011 that it would be eliminating both teams at the end of the current school year.^[29]

Impact[link]

Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males.

Advocates of Title IX's current interpretation cite increases in female athletic participation, and attribute those increases to Title IX.^[30][31][32] One study, completed in 2006, pointed to a large increase in the number of women participating in athletics at both the high school and college level. The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%.^[33] A 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports has grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) Basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) Volleyball, 95.7%, (3) Soccer, 92.0%, (4) Cross Country, 90.8%, and (5) Softball, 89.2%.^[34]

At the same time, many contend that the current interpretation of Title IX by the OCR has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports.^[35] For example, though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990, ^[36] scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period.^[37][38] The OCR's three-prong test for compliance with Title IX often is cited as the reason for these cuts.^[38][39] Wrestling historically was the most frequently dropped sport,^[39] but other men's sports later overtook the lead, such that according to the NCAA, the most-dropped men's sports between 1987 and 2002 were as follows: Cross country (183), indoor track (180), golf (178), tennis (171), rowing (132), outdoor track (126), swimming (125) and wrestling (121).^[37]

A guideline announced by Vice President Joe Biden on 4 April 2011, on sexual harassment or violence, required that institutions conduct investigations and discipline on the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than that of beyond reasonable doubt.^[40] The use of such a standard by the University of North Dakota has been criticized by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in the case of Caleb Warner, who was suspended for three years in January 2010 on the basis of a report by a complainant who was subsequently charged with filing a false report by state police, a decision which the University has refused to reconsider.^[41]

Controversy[link]

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.^[35][42][43]

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics. Instead it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex," despite the fact that ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes." As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to take male athletic interest into consideration, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test actually operates to discriminate against men.^[35][43]

Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics irrespective of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest,"^[44] critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in governmentally-mandated social engineering whereby athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Academy Award winning author and self-described women's rights advocate John Irving opined in a New York Times column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title IX be maintained.^[42]

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.^[45] Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses.^[46] On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e-mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance.

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."^[47] The Commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex," almost always females.^[47]

Commission on Opportunity in Athletics[link]

On June 27, 2002, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced the creation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a blue-ribbon panel to examine ways to strengthen enforcement and expand opportunities to ensure fairness for all college athletes.^[48] Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. The purpose of the Commission was to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input directed at improving the application of Federal standards for measuring equal opportunity for men and women and boys and girls to participate in athletics under Title IX. Sports scholarships between men and women must be equal.

The panel held four town hall meetings (in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and San Diego) to allow the general public to comment on the past, present, and future of Title IX. On February 26, 2003 the COA issued its final report.^[49] The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. Although many of the recommendations were unanimous, some of the more controversial recommendations passed by an 8-5 vote. These dealt with considering non-scholarship athletes in prong one of the three-part test for compliance and allowing interest surveys to determine compliance with prong three. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider the unanimous recommendations, which provided that the Department of Education (1) reaffirm its strong commitment to equal opportunity for girls and boys, women and men; (2) aggressively enforce Title IX in a uniform way across the nation; (3) give equal weight to all three prongs of the test governing Title IX compliance; and (4) encourage schools to understand that the Department of Education disapproves of cutting teams in order to comply with Title IX.^[50]

Similar U.S. state laws[link]

Because Title IX only addresses public and private schools that receive federal funding, several states have enacted similar laws to prohibit discrimination based on sex regardless of whether the school receives federal funding. As of 2008,^{[dated info]} about a third of the states have done so, including Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.^[51]

See also[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Title IX

Women's sport portal

• Gender equality
• Title IX impact on male athletics
• National Collegiate Women's Ice Hockey Championship
• Major women's sport leagues in North America

Further reading[link]

• Brake, Deborah L. Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women's Sports Revolution (New York University Press; 2010) 287 pages, scholarly history
• Blumenthal, Karen. Let Me Play : The story of Title IX, the law that changed the future of girls in America (Atheneum Books for Young Readers; 2005) 152 pages,
• Gavora, Jessica. Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX (Encounter Books; 2003) 165 pages,

References[link]

Abby Wambach

Abby Wambach of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team at a friendly against Canada in 2011
Personal information
Full name	Mary Abigail Wambach
Date of birth	(1980-06-02) June 2, 1980 (age 32)
Place of birth	Rochester, New York, United States
Height	5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)
Playing position	Forward
Number	20
Youth career
1998–2001	University of Florida
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps†	(Gls)†
2002–2003	Washington Freedom	36	(23)
2009–2010	Washington Freedom	39	(21)
2011	magicJack	11	(9)
National team‡
2003–	United States	179	(135)
Teams managed
2011	magicJack (Player-Coach)
Honours Competitor for the United States Women's Olympic medal record Gold 2004 Athens Team World Cup medal record Bronze 2003 United States Team Bronze 2007 China Team Silver 2011 Germany Team
* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of August 20, 2011. † Appearances (Goals). ‡ National team caps and goals correct as of 9 April 2012

Mary Abigail Wambach (born June 2, 1980) is an American professional soccer player, coach and Olympic gold medalist. She played college soccer for the University of Florida, where she was a member of a national university championship team and was recognized as a three-time All-American. A five-time winner of the U.S. Soccer Athlete of the Year award, she has been a regular on the U.S. women's national team since 2003. Wambach currently stands as the second highest all-time goal scorer for the USA Women's National Soccer Team, after Mia Hamm; Hamm and Wambach are also No. 1 and No. 2 world-wide.

Early life[link]

Wambach was born in Rochester, New York and raised in its suburb Pittsford, New York, the youngest of seven children of Pete and Judy Wambach.^[1][2] In her first youth soccer league, she was transferred from the girls' team to the boys' team after scoring twenty-seven goals in only three games.^[3] Wambach attended Our Lady of Mercy High School in Rochester, New York, where she lettered in soccer and basketball.^[1] Following her high school senior season, she was named to Parade magazine's high school All-America team, and the national Player of the Year by Umbro and the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA).^[1][4]

College career[link]

Wambach received an athletic scholarship to attend the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where she played for coach Becky Burleigh's Florida Gators women's soccer team in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) competition from 1998 to 2001.^[1] While she was a Gator soccer player, the team won an NCAA national championship (1998), and four consecutive Southeastern Conference (SEC) championships (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).^[1] Individually, she was the SEC Freshman of the Year (1998), a first-team All-SEC selection for four straight seasons (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001), and a two-time SEC Player of the Year (2000, 2001), and twice received SEC Tournament Most Valuable Player honors (2000, 2001).^[1] She was also a freshman All-American (1998), and a three-time first-team All-American (1999, 2000, 2001).^[1]

In addition to leading the Gators to the Final Four of the NCAA Women's Soccer Tournament as a senior in 2001, she set school career records for goals (96), assists (49), points (242), game-winning goals (24), and hat tricks (10).^[5] Ten years later she remains the Florida Gators' all-time leading scorer with ninety-six goals. Wambach was inducted into the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame as a "Gator Great" in 2012.^[6]

Professional career[link]

In 2002, Wambach was the second overall draft pick in the WUSA. She went on to play for the Washington Freedom rather than completing her degree at Florida. Her contributions in Washington, playing alongside Mia Hamm, helped to propel the Freedom to a victory in Founders Cup III (the WUSA championship match), where Wambach was the MVP.

In the Women's Professional Soccer allocation draft for the 2009 season, Wambach was assigned back to the Washington Freedom.^[7] She was voted WPS Player of the Week for the week of April 26 (Week 5) after scoring two goals in the Washington Freedom's 4-3 victory over the FC Gold Pride,^[8] the Freedom's first victory in the new league. On May 3, 2009, in the Freedom's next game, she received a yellow card for a tackle on St. Louis Athletica midfielder Daniela that left Daniela with two damaged knee ligaments and a crack in the tibia and sidelined her for the rest of the season.^[9] Wambach was suspended for one game after the challenge was reviewed by the WPS commissioner.^[10] She won the WPS player of the week for the week of July 28 (Week 18) for scoring two goals against the Chicago Red Stars and Sky Blue FC ^[11] and for the week of Aug 11 (Week 20) for scoring two goals and having one assist against the Sky Blue^[12] She ended the 2009 season with eight goals—more than any other American player in the WPS.^[13] She returned to the Washington Freedom for the 2010 WPS season, winning the WPS player of the week in week 2 for scoring one goal and having two assists against the Atlanta Beat.^[14]

The Washington Freedom, founded in 2001 as part of the Women's Professional Soccer league, relocated to Boca Raton, Florida and became the magicJack in 2011.

On July 22, 2011, Wambach was named the player-coach for the magicJack for the rest of the 2011 WPS season.^[15]

On October 26, 2011, the Women's Professional Soccer League Governors voted to terminate the magicJack franchise. Wambach has not signed with another team.

International career[link]

Wambach's WUSA credentials earned her a spot at the U.S. Women's National Team's training camp, and was named to the 2003 World Cup team. She scored a goal against arch-rival Norway, helping the U.S. team to a position in the semifinals and a bronze medal.

After the suspension of the WUSA, Wambach trained with the U.S. Women's National Team for the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece. Her header in extra time against Brazil gave the U.S. team a 2–1 victory and the gold medal. She finished the year with 31 goals and 13 assists. She finished fourth in the voting for the FIFA Women's World Player of the Year.

After the Athens Olympics, Wambach was a major contributor to the U.S. Women's National Team, playing in the 2005 Algarve Cup and a number of exhibition games. The team ended the 2005 season without allowing a single goal.

At the end of 2006, Wambach had 66 goals in 84 international matches, scoring more goals in fewer games than any player since Michelle Akers. She was one of twenty players nominated for FIFA Women's World Player of the Year for 2006; she was not named as a finalist.

In the 2007 Women's World Cup, Wambach scored six goals in six matches, despite receiving 11 stitches to her head after a collision with Ri Kum-Suk,^[16] a North Korean player, in the first game. In the quarterfinal match against England on September 22, 2007, she became the twentieth American woman, and thirtieth American soccer player overall, to reach the 100 cap plateau.

Wambach was named to the 2008 U.S. Olympic Women's Soccer Team on June 23, 2008.^[17] In the final match before the Olympics on July 16, she broke her left leg in a collision with Brazilian defender Andréia Rosa,^[18] preventing her from playing in the Beijing Olympics. Wambach was the team's leading scorer and had just reached 99 goals, one shy of becoming the fifth U.S. player and ninth female player in world history to notch 100 career international goals.^[19]

The goal she scored against Germany on October 29, 2009 moved her past Tiffeny Milbrett for fourth place on the all-time United States goal scoring list.

As of May 27, 2012 Wambach's international career totals stood at 135 goals in 179 international matches. She currently stands second only behind Mia Hamm (158) on USA's all-time scoring list.^[20] Her 100th goal was scored in a friendly match against Canada in her hometown of Rochester on July 19, 2009. She reached 100 goals in fewer games than any of the four other American players who had previously reached 100 goals: (Mia Hamm, Kristine Lilly, Michelle Akers and Tiffeny Milbrett).^[21]

Wambach is a five-time winner of the U.S. Soccer Federation's U.S. Soccer Athlete of the Year award (2003, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011) and was named Associated Press Female Athlete of the Year for 2011.

2011 FIFA Women's World Cup[link]

On May 9, 2011, the U.S. roster for the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup tournament in Germany was announced, including Wambach.^[22] The 2011 Women's World Cup tournament is the third in which she has played. After playing without scoring a goal in the USA's first two group stage matches against North Korea and Colombia, Wambach opened her tournament scoring in a 2–1 loss to Sweden in Team USA's final group stage match. Having lost to Sweden, the USA WNT finished second in their group and went on to face Group D first-place finishers Brazil. On July 10, 2011, during the USA Women's National team's quarterfinal game against Brazil, Wambach scored a header goal in stoppage time after the 120th minute (120th+2 minute injury time) to even the score at 2–2 against the Brazilians; Team USA went on to win the game on penalty kicks and advanced to the semi-finals.^[23] In all World Cup matches – men's or women's – her goal stands as the latest ever scored. Her last minute goal was awarded ESPN's 2011 ESPY Award for Best Play of the Year. Wambach scored her third goal for USA in Team USA's semi-final 3–1 win over France. In the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Final against underdogs Japan, Wambach's trademark header goal, her fourth in the tournament, in the first half of extra-time made her the United States' all-time scoring leader in FIFA Women's World Cup with 13 goals, second to Brazil's Marta and Germany's Birgit Prinz (14 all-time goals each). Team USA was forced to a penalty shootout after a late equalizer by Japan. In the PSO, Japan won 3–1, with Wambach converting the fourth and only penalty. Wambach's final goal tally for the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup was four goals and one assist, an effort that earned her the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Bronze Boot after Brazil's Marta (4 goals, 2 assists, Silver Boot) and Japan's Homare Sawa (5 goals, 1 assist, Golden Boot). Interestingly, all 4 of Wambach's goals in the tournament were scored using her head.^[24] For her efforts, Wambach was awarded the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Silver Ball to go alongside her Silver Medal and Bronze Boot.^[25]

Professional statistics[link]

See also[link]

	Biography portal
	Olympics portal
	Soccer in the United States portal

• Florida Gators
• List of association women football players with 100 or more international goals
• List of Florida Gators soccer players
• List of University of Florida alumni
• List of University of Florida Olympians

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Abby Wambach

• Abby Wambach Official Website
• Abby Wambach U.S. Soccer Info Page
• Women's Professional Soccer Player Info Page
• FIFA.com Player Statistics Page
• 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Player Info Page
• Wambach's Washington Freedom WUSA page, as archived

United States squads v t e United States squad – 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Third Place 1 Scurry 2 Bivens 3 Pearce 4 Reddick 5 Roberts 6 Chastain 7 Boxx 8 MacMillan 9 Hamm 10 Wagner 11 Foudy 12 Parlow 13 Lilly 14 Fawcett 15 Sobrero 16 Milbrett 17 Slaton 18 Mullinix 19 Hucles 20 Wambach Coach: Heinrichs v t e United States squad – 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup Third Place 1 Scurry 2 Dalmy 3 Rampone 4 Whitehill 5 Tarpley 6 Kai 7 Boxx 8 Ellertson 9 O'Reilly 10 Wagner 11 Lloyd 12 Osborne 13 Lilly (c.) 14 Lopez 15 Markgraf 16 Hucles 17 Chalupny 18 Solo 19 Jobson 20 Wambach 21 Barnhart Coach: Ryan v t e United States squad – 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Runners-up 1 Solo 2 Mitts 3 Rampone (c.) 4 Sauerbrunn 5 O'Hara 6 LePeilbet 7 Boxx 8 Rodriguez 9 O'Reilly 10 Lloyd 11 Krieger 12 Cheney 13 Morgan 14 Cox 15 Rapinoe 16 Lindsey 17 Heath 18 Barnhart 19 Buehler 20 Wambach 21 Loyden Coach: Sundhage