An Athletic Arms Race

Abstract

MYLES Brand, a fellow former university president, is a friend of mine. He is, I believe, a person of unquestioned integrity and high principle. But as president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), he has been asked to fend off an unruly mob with a switch. In the present environment for collegiate sports, his chances for success are slight, at best. What Brand and the NCAA face today is a very real arms race, one fueled by an insatiable appetite on the part of students, alumni, and the general public for college athletic success. Fiscal restraint is not frequently in evidence. New, multimillion-dollar facilities now seem to be the rule, rather than the exception. As Brand has told me, Institutions hold mortgages on burgeoning facility expansion that represents on average 20% of intercollegiate athletics spending. Too few understand that only a handful of major intercollegiate athletic programs actually make money (fewer than 15 at last count). Meanwhile, the rest struggle to break even. Despite television income, growing ticket revenues, and contributions from supporters, big-time college athletics is a high-risk business. Let us not forget that marquee football and basketball coaches are paid millions of dollars a year, many times over what is allotted to outstanding faculty members and administrators. Not too many years ago, the million-dollar coach was a rarity. That is no longer the case, with at least 50 of the Football Bowl of NCAA Division I (formerly Division I-A) head coaches annually earning $1 million or more. There were five in 1999. Coaches at the Bowl Subdivision schools are making an average of more than $950,000 a year. Brand has said that the salaries of million-dollar coaches have averaged 3.1% of the schools' football budgets. University of Alabama paid Nick Saban $4 million a year to return the Crimson Tide to the glory days of legendary coach Bear Bryant. Saban is being paid 9% of the Alabama football budget. Too many athletic departments rely on some form of university subsidy, a sore point with faculty members and elected state officials. A growing number of elected federal officials believe that athletic departments have more influence than they should and need to be reined in. Members of the House Ways and Means Committee are threatening to take action, because they believe college athletic programs have moved too far away from their original and intended purposes and in many instances are undercutting institutional missions. threat is real. Some members of Congress see today's major college football and basketball programs as professional-like in nature and substance and resent their tax-exempt status. Former University of Michigan President James Duderstadt has said repeatedly, The simplest way to characterize the problem with college sports is to recognize that it is a very profitable commercial entertainment business that is moving farther and farther away from the original academic purposes of the university. Any congressional intrusion is certain to be actively discouraged by college presidents and their trustees, who will argue that they are best able to regulate collegiate sports. And I believe a clear majority of the House and Senate members will be careful to end up on the right political side of the issue, because they realize the immense and growing popularity of college football and basketball with the voters. …