Year: 2016
Type: editorial
Abstract: The explosive growth of the college athletics “business” has dramatically altered these amateur games over the past decade. The multimillion dollar university sports enterprises often dwarf academic departments in terms of resources. Athletic departments are commanding more and more attention of college presidents and governing boards, and rightfully so! While many of the perennial top competitors in college athletics reap the benefits of success in ticket sales, merchandising, TV revenue, and alumni support, those not making the grade in terms of wins and losses often are forced to rely on the general funds of the university to balance the budget. When general university funds are diverted from the academic mission to support athletic programs, questions of the university’s priorities are understandably raised. A few examples might clarify this issue. In 2015, Oregon was reportedly the most profitable university/sports complex, generating $196 million in revenue over $110.4 million in expenses, for a profit of $83.5 million.7 The balance sheet was made very positive by a gift of $95 million. On the other side of the spectrum, Rutgers reportedly had the largest athletic department deficit for 2013-2014 at $36.3 million.7 According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), just 24 of the 230 public Division 1 schools had balance sheets in the black and were able to support their athletic programs without help from the general funds of the university.7 Consequently, the trends in rising costs of competition have generated fears among those responsible for university fiscal policy, so much so that the state of Virginia recently passed a law limiting the dollars that can be diverted to athletic programs from the university’s general finances.1 With these thoughts in mind, it is interesting to look at where the money in college athletics often goes.
Athletic venues help generate the atmosphere and experience of the athletic contests and are often tops in athletic department budget items. Auburn spent $13.9 million on an 11,000–square foot high-definition video board roughly the size of a 5-story building.4 Close behind the infrastructure costs are those of the personnel required to run college athletic departments. Coaches and staff account for approximately 30% of Division 1 athletic expenditures.2 Coach Krzyzewski of Duke appears to top the list at $9.7 million annually, while 35 coaches in the 2015 NCAA basketball tournament had 7-figure salaries.2 On the revenue side, NCAA March Madness generated approximately $800 million, while fans bet approximately $9 million dollars on the games.2 The NCAA spent $85 million on the production of its Division 1 Championships.6 Approximately $194 million went to conference offices and independent schools from the NCAA as support funding,5 while $75.6 million was deposited in the NCAA Student Assistance Fund, with $26.1 million diverted to the NCAA’s academic fund.5
If you think those are big numbers, take a closer look at where college football is with the “Power Five” conferences: the Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific 12, Southeastern Conference, and the Atlantic Coast Conference. The NCAA controls the television rights to March Madness but the football championship television rights belong to the conferences. That contract with ESPN is currently $7.3 billion dollars for 12 years.4
When analyzing these numbers, it is understandable why many voices are calling for student athletes to be paid for their services. To that extent, the NCAA has recently allowed schools to pay for the full cost of school attendance (transportation and living expenses that were not covered by scholarships) by college athletes.1 This stipend can amount to almost $3000 per athlete per school year. Certainly those numbers, plus the cost of tuition, room, and board, are not minor, but they are relatively small when reviewing the balance sheets of many college sports enterprises and the television revenue. On the other hand, some college athletes in football, basketball, hockey, and baseball also have the opportunity to reap handsome rewards for their collegiate careers if they succeed in getting to the professional level, and those who take full advantage of their academic opportunities certainly can take with them a valuable college degree. Unfortunately, many in some sports—and most in others—do not take full advantage of the educational opportunity and fail to graduate. This may explain the absence of some perennial basketball powerhouses on the NCAA website for college graduation rates.3
Taking these factors into account, it appears that those who benefit the least from their college athletic experience are those who do not make the professional grade and those who fail to earn a college degree. Unfortunately, some athletes fail at both endpoints because of injury sustained during their collegiate careers. While there are safety nets for these casualties at most schools and in the NCAA,6 the possibility of severe injury is no doubt part of the argument for athletes to leave the college game early and go professional when the opportunity presents itself. It is also part of the argument to pay college athletes more.
This is where perspective should enter the discussion. From my standpoint, we cannot do enough for these student athletes medically. Not just for those whose careers end prematurely because of injury but for all athletes accepting the participation risks. Not only should their treatment be the best available, but we should also increase our research efforts into the mechanisms of their injuries. We should do everything possible to make these athletic endeavors as safe as they can be. This is where the current system could and should be improved. The dollars to upgrade the research and treatment of injuries are there, it just needs to be recognized as a higher priority.
Some have suggested compensating college athletes monetarily to a greater degree. This certainly is a slippery slope, and where that will take the college game in the future is unclear. No doubt, it will certainly further blur the separation between amateur students and professionals, leading more academicians, politicians, and the public to rightfully question the place of college sports on the campuses of higher education. Many of us already question whether this burgeoning business of college sports is out of control. Many pertinent questions persist. Can college presidents or state legislatures still rein athletic departments in? Can athletic and academic departments do a better job of setting academic priorities and enforcing them for student athletes? If it meant adjusting weekday game schedules against the pressures of TV revenue, is the public ready for that? I don’t think the juggernaut of college sports can be set in reverse to the games of past decades, but can the explosive growth of college sports entertainment be slowed? The next decade should certainly prove interesting for college sports.
Author: Edward M. Wojtys
Language: English
Subfield: Economics and Econometrics
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2345188092