The Impact of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

Eric T. Vanover and Michael M. DeBowes

The place of athletics in American higher education has been defended and criticized for well

over one hundred years (Camp, 1893). Having become such a popular cultural attraction and

tradition, as well as a potential method of generating revenue, the role of college athletics has

broadened beyond a student-oriented activity. This article reviews the different ways

intercollegiate athletics influences the reputation, operation, and quality of higher education.

Keywords: athletics spending, intercollegiate athletics, higher education National Collegiate

Athletic Association (NCAA)

Athletics in American higher education has created an historic tradition in American

culture pre-dating the American Revolution. The evolution of collegiate athletics from colonial

intramural activities focused on maintaining physical fitness into the multi-billion dollar

intercollegiate enterprise that exists today (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics,

2009) did not occur without changing institutional perceptions and some controversy. Indeed,

the same questions asked today about the place of intercollegiate athletics were of concern to

previous generations. The tradition of American collegiate athletics has always been coupled

with defining how their incorporation impacts the academic mission of an institution. The

commercialization of intercollegiate athletics began in the mid-19

Century and has grown

exponentially into a matter of great debate for leaders of higher education institutions (Flowers,

2009; Zimbalist, 1999).

American higher education during the 19

Century centered on two major cultural

attributes: the ideology of competition as a pathway for socio-political and financial success in

American society and the rise of the voluntary tradition to attend college as the duty of the

educated citizen under republican values (Mattingly, 2007). Camp (1893) promoted the

incorporation of track athletics at the college level to both allow America to ascend to the level

2013 Edition

of competition in England and as a beneficial pursuit for creating the well-rounded, educated

gentleman. The latter half of the 19

Century witnessed the rise of intercollegiate competition,

first, between the Harvard and Yale rowing organizations in 1852, a baseball series in 1868, and

football games between years 1872-73. As intramural competition progressed into

intercollegiate competitions involving community support and identity, as well as a new method

of student recruitment, organizing and regulating athletics became less the responsibility of the

students and moved into the hands of alumni, faculty, and administration (Flowers, 2009;

Thwing, 1906).

The public popularity of these intercollegiate athletic events introduced the

commercialization of college sports. Much as is the official attitude today, the athletes were

expected to be detached from any profit and compete for the pureness of sport between

gentlemen. Walter Camp wrote in 1893, “A gentleman does not make his living, however, from

his athletic prowess. He does not earn anything by his victories except glory and satisfaction” (p.

2) . Even in the 1850s, however, business leaders and marketers realized that the public

attraction to intercollegiate competition could provide a great deal of advertisement and income

(Flowers, 2009). At the first meeting between the Harvard and Yale rowing teams in 1852, one

thousand people attended the event. Only seven years later, in 1859, some twenty thousand

spectators gathered to enjoy the competition (Flowers, 2009; Thwing, 1906). Flowers (2009)

pointed out that the commercial potential for these competitions did not remain unnoticed for

long. Sponsorship, promotion, and advertisement soon made their way into intercollegiate

athletics.

The student, institution, community benefits, and consequences consume the discussion

of intercollegiate athletics today in light of the popularity growth, cultural change, and

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

technological advances; but the topics of concern have changed little. Duderstadt (2000),

President Emeritus at the University of Michigan, suggested that college sports provide the

athlete and the spectator with important life skills such as teamwork, persistence, and discipline.

They also provide a sense of unity and pride for the students, the university, and the community.

The author pointed out several areas of tremendous concern such as the quasi-professional nature

of intercollegiate sports, exploitation of student-athletes, hindrances to the academic mission,

tolerance of low graduation rates, cheating and scandal (Duderstadt, 2000).

Almost one hundred years earlier, Thwing (1906) reported a similar duality in the

perspectives of college presidents regarding intercollegiate athletics, particularly concerning the

rise in the popularity of American football. The author quoted the president of Harvard

University, who expressed concern for the “‘extreme publicity, [and] large proportion of

injuries…[t]he crude and vociferous criticism, blame, and praise which fall to the lot of the

football player…[and] [t]he distraction from proper collegiate pursuits of multitudes of

undergraduates during football season’” (Charles W. Eliot, as quoted inThwing, 1906, pp. 386-

387). Other presidents of the era commended intercollegiate athletics, again football in

particular, arguing that sports provide leadership qualities that could not be found in books. The

president of Colgate University argued, “‘…the general attention to healthful exercise and even

to the severe work in track athletics, baseball, and basketball is beneficial to mental work’”

(Charles W. Eliot, as quoted inThwing, 1906, p. 388). The differing perceptions of the value of

intercollegiate athletics are just as much a part of the history as the sports themselves.

With the popularity of intercollegiate athletics growing in the public eye, as well as the

concern for college football integrity and safety, higher education administrations endeavored to

legitimize and codify college sports. The Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United

2013 Edition

States, now known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1906.

Flowers (2009) argued that this organization allowed for the commercialization of intercollegiate

athletics to flourish, assured the amateur status of college athletes, and “loosely coupled” (p.

358) academics and athletics as the focus of the academic mission. Indeed, the regulation of

televised football games and the governing of bowl games were organized through the NCAA.

Division level expansion in the 1970s and the inclusion of women’s athletics in the 1980s were

also structured in the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010b).

The exponential growth in popularity and financial value of intercollegiate athletics has

not been without the presence of academic and financial corruption. The Southern Methodist

University football team was banned from competition for one year in 1987 for NCAA

infractions such as the payment of players and other prohibited incentives. More recently, the

MacMurray College’s NCAA Division III men’s tennis team was given the “death penalty” for

providing illegitimate scholarships to athletes in 2005 (Suggs, 2005). The MacMurray case

marked only the second time the NCAA implemented its most severe punishment .

After the Southern Methodist University football scandal in 1986 resulted in the NCAA

handing down the first “death penalty,” the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics

formed in 1989 to recommend new and reformed strategies for preserving the academic integrity

of higher education institutions with intercollegiate athletics teams. The model initiated by the

Knight Commission, reported in Keeping Faith with the Student-Athlete, suggested that

presidential control should regulate academic integrity, fiscal integrity, and a plan for

maintaining certification and compliance with the NCAA (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate

Athletics, n.d.).

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

The NCAA currently lists among its core values supporting “the collegiate model of

athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and

athletics experiences” (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010a, para. 2). The issue of

whether or not intercollegiate athletics provides such a balancing act for college athletes and

guards against their corruption and exploitation that commercialization threatens, remains under

debate. As throughout the history of intercollegiate athletics in America, the assessment of their

value to the academic goals and experiences of higher education must be re-evaluated by each

generation. This article endeavors to review the current evaluation on the topic.

Impact on Academics

The relationship between academics and college athletics has traditionally been a point of

contention in higher education. Some have argued that intercollegiate athletics complements and

supports the academic missions of higher education. Others have suggested that the

commercialization, exploitation, and distractions that have grown out of intercollegiate athletics

are detrimental to higher education. Recent research, however, has suggested the inclusion of

college athletics benefits the academic missions of higher education institutions (Franklin, 2006;

Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, & Hannah, 2006).

Brand (2006) outlined a common view of collegiate athletics held many faculty and

administrators in higher education. Through what the author labeled the “Standard View,”

(Brand, 2006, p. 9) intercollegiate athletics are underappreciated by higher education institutions

in so much that athletics are considered extracurricular activities only. The opinion holds that

athletics could be absent from an institution without negatively affecting the educational and

academic integrity of the school and may remove unnecessary distractions from the academic

missions (Brand, 2006). Bowen and Levin (2003) criticized intercollegiate sports not as a

2013 Edition

negative aspect of the educational mission of higher education institutions, but for the

transformation of intercollegiate athletics, especially Division I competition, into a

commercialized and publicly exposed distraction and obstruction to students, athletes, and higher

education values.

Recent discussion about the impact of intercollegiate athletics on higher education

academic integrity has focused on the impact on students, faculty roles in college athletics, and

their function within higher education institutions. Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, and Hannah (2006)

explored the perceived differences in student engagement and experience between student-

athletes and non-athletes. The authors suggested that student-athletes are engaged in educational

activities as much other students and experience academic challenges on similar levels.

Moreover, the authors reported that the effect of participating in college athletics is relatively

similar in all institutions of higher education (Umbach et al., 2006). Student engagement

provides an important function for retention of both athletes and non-athletes but may be of

additional benefit for collegiate athletes. Franklin (2006) suggested that student-athletes that do

not complete twenty-four credited hours of course work in their freshmen year are less likely to

complete a degree program.

A common opinion of intercollegiate athletics is that, overall, student-athletes excel at

similar levels, if not higher levels, than non-athlete students (Franklin, 2006; Gayles & Hu, 2009;

Umbach et al., 2006). However, Gayles and Hu (2009) further proposed that sport profile, or

commercial popularity, may impact student engagement and academic outcomes more so than

low profile sport student-athlete. While student-athletes graduate at higher rates in overall

comparison to the student population (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011a), student-

athletes who participate in NCAA men’s football and basketball graduate below the average

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

levels (Franklin, 2006). While some have advocated the value of college sports in promoting

discipline and cognitive skills, the benefits of student-engagement such as identity formation,

learning processes, and communication skills may be negatively impacted by participation in

high-profile intercollegiate athletics (Duderstadt, 2000; Gayles & Hu, 2009).

The majority of recent research that focuses on the effects of intercollegiate athletics for

students explores the relationship for the student-athlete. Intercollegiate athletics, however, also

affects non-athlete students in both positive and negative manners (Bowen & Levin, 2003;

Duderstadt, 2000; J.H. Lawrence, 2009). Mixon and Trevino (2005) explored the effects of

intercollegiate football programs on the institution’s graduation rates. The authors suggested that

athletic success augments the educational missions of higher education institutions.

Furthermore, successful football programs benefit student recruitment, retention rates, and social

development. Mixon and Trevino (2005) argued that successful football programs, rather than

providing academic distraction through football fever provided assistance in the social and

psychological adjustment of leaving home that reflects into the classroom as well. The authors

coined the term “‘football chicken soup’” (Mixon & Trevino, 2005, p. 99) to describe this effect.

Results from the authors’ study supported their hypothesis that successful football programs

positively influenced graduation rates at institutions of higher education (Mixon & Trevino,

2005).

Lindo, Swensen, and Waddell (in press) analyzed 29,737 academic transcripts of student

non-athletes who attended the University of Oregon between 1999 to 2007. The authors

examined course grades earned during the nine fall semesters to explore the impact of football

wins on non-athletes. Lindo et al. (in press) found an inverse relationship between football

success and academic success, concluding “male grades fall significantly with the success of the

2013 Edition

football team, both in absolute terms and relative to females” (p. 15). The impact was greatest

among males from low-income backgrounds, non-Whites, and students with low academic

ability. The authors also surveyed current students and found that males were “more likely to

increase alcohol consumption, decrease studying, and increase partying around the success of the

football team” (Lindo et al., in press, p. 16).

Since the 1991 Knight’s Commission advocated more faculty involvement in reforming

intercollegiate athletics and promoting an effective balance between athletics and academics,

faculty have assumed a more prominent role in governing intercollegiate athletics (Knight

Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, n.d.; Lawrence, Mullin, & Horton, 2009). Lawrence et

al. (2009) suggested that the majority of faculty felt removed from intercollegiate athletics

reform and assessment and perceived intercollegiate sports as a separate enterprise managed by

administrators. The authors reported that 35 % of faculty members believe intercollegiate

administrators do not provide necessary information for faculty committees to effectively

develop valuable student-athlete educational plans. Lack of communication between

administrators and faculty concerning intercollegiate athletics suggests to faculty that athletics

holds a privileged position in higher education institutions (Lawrence et al., 2009).

In addressing these issues, Lawrence, Ott and Hendricks (2009) organized the reform

discussion by organizations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

and Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) into three major topics including “academic

oversight, faculty governance, and fiscal oversight” (p 73). It is in these three areas

intercollegiate athletics have negatively impacted higher education and are in need of reform,

according to these faculty-oriented organizations. Brand (2006) recognized that not all faculty

members opposed intercollegiate athletics, but the author implied that faculty tended to regard

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

intellectual capability higher than athletic ability. However, faculty perceived the opposite was

true of institution administrations citing discontent with the financial favor that athletic

departments, especially high profile sports, receive over educational facets in the institution

(Brand, 2006).

Multiculturalism in Intercollegiate Athletics

Constructing racially and culturally diverse educational environments provides beneficial

social and learning developments in higher education (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2011).

Intercollegiate athletics offers one method of creating such an environment. Hirko (2009)

proposed that athletes perceive their involvement in intercollegiate athletics as quality interracial

interaction which benefits their experience and education. While this suggestion implies these

quality interactions occur between teammates, there is a possibility that because intercollegiate

athletics influence institutions of higher education on many levels the same could be related to

the student body. Athletics provide a sense of community for the student body and those

affiliated with the institution and large numbers of non-athlete student experience racial diversity

through intramural athletics (Brand, 2006; Fisher, 2009; Lawrence et al., 2009; Mixon &

Trevino, 2005).

Community College Athletics

The impact of intercollegiate athletics in the community college has been as unique as the

community college mission in the world of higher education. With a focus on open enrollment,

affordability, and diverse curricula, the community college has historically endeavored to

encompass and meet the vast needs of as many students as possible (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). In

embracing such a mission, it is a matter of inevitability that the issue of intercollegiate athletics

2013 Edition

has become a point of discussion for the community college. Diverse opinions exist concerning

the place of intercollegiate sports in higher education, but as Cohen and Brawer (2008)

suggested, community colleges in the past have prospered in their activities because of the lack

of precedents, traditions, and hierarchies of accountability that allow them to rapidly evolve.

The intermittent and diverse nature of community college athletics in the present again suggests

that community college leaders are faced with assessing, formulating, and implementing the

inclusion of athletics on their campuses without a particular model of reference or past tradition

(Williams, Byrd, & Pennington, 2008; Williams & Pennington, 2006). Emulating the four-year

university approach to intercollegiate athletics presents peculiar problems for community college

administrators due to the mission of the community college and budgetary confinements, but

community colleges are presented with the same controversial issues as are faced by four year

institutions (Lawrence et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2008; Williams & Pennington, 2006).

Bush, Casteñeda, Hardy, and Kastinas (2009) explored the demographics of students who

participate in intercollegiate athletics at the community college level. The authors reported that

59 % of community colleges across the United States fielded athletic teams in 2002-04. The

majority of these athletic programs existed at rural community colleges with a noticeable trend of

smaller schools being more likely to have athletic programs. Of the 567 community colleges that

reported sponsoring athletic teams in 2002-03 academic year, the community colleges reported a

slightly higher number of men’s teams (565) than women’s teams (558) (Bush et al., 2009).

Recent literature has pointed to several reasons for the inclusion of athletics at the community

college level. The most common of these reasons is the idea that athletics, as in four-

universities, assists in maintaining enrollment growth. Bush et al. (2009) implied that the critical

need for sustaining enrollment growth may provide an explanation for the high number of

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

athletic programs at rural community colleges. In addition, the presence of intercollegiate

athletics promotes student involvement, provides a method of community outreach, and is often

considered an important part of the overall collegiate experience (Bush et al., 2009; Williams et

al., 2008; Williams & Pennington, 2006).

Since the 1991 report by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics presented

foundational ideas and values geared to the reformation of intercollegiate athletics, an emphasis

has been placed on the role of the president of institutions of higher education (Knight

Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, n.d.). Williams and Pennington (2006) explored the

perceptions about intercollegiate athletics of community college presidents. In disagreement

with the idea that most believe community college athletic programs to not reflect the same

benefits as those at four year colleges and universities, the authors reported that an overall

majority of leaders with existing athletic programs believed athletics inspire pride in the student

body and throughout the community (Williams & Pennington, 2006). Thus, intercollegiate

athletics at the community college level could serve as a community outreach program and result

in an enrollment growth.

Several studies have suggested that initiating intercollegiate athletics at the community

college level faces challenges including financing these programs and the effects these programs

would have on the community college mission (Bush et al., 2009; Lawrence et al., 2009;

Williams et al., 2008; Williams & Pennington, 2006). Indeed, Williams and Pennington (2006)

reported that funding presented an issue for 79 % of community college presidents included in

the study and only 26 % implied that community college leaders understood the process of

incorporating new athletic programs. Lawrence et al. (2009) argued that while it is unlikely that

local and state funding support would deter the focus on the financial burden of community

2013 Edition

college athletic programs, the community college’s reputation for being business-oriented and

adaptive could benefit fundraising for athletic programs. The author suggested that soliciting

corporate sponsorships and community partnerships could be a fundraising opportunity for

community colleges (Lawrence et al., 2009). Both Lawrence et al. (2009) and Williams et al.

(2008) agreed that caution should be taken toward any approach that would raise the cost of

attending community college as such a measure directly opposes the mission of providing

assessable and affordable education.

Bush et al. (2009) argued that community college athletics potentially faced similar

issues as four-year universities. The authors suggested “access, gender equality, financial

stability, and recruitment” (p. 12) were probable areas of apprehension. Williams et al. (2008)

advocated that community colleges wishing to establish intercollegiate athletic programs should

consider joining the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCCA) and work with other

district community colleges to develop statewide initiatives for implementing and monitoring

community college athletic programs.

University Rankings

Higher education institutions traditionally have accepted institutional rankings as method

to gain prestige and to lure students to attend. The third party ranking systems through

organizations such as the U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) have developed into a multi-

million dollar venture (Fisher, 2009). Fisher (2009) investigated the relationship between

successful intercollegiate athletic programs and the USNWR rankings of higher education

institutions. The author found that there exists little statistical correlation between athletic

program success and institutional rankings overall. However, private schools that dominate the

highest rankings fared better over time if the institution maintained a Division I football

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

program. The author suggested that athletic programs may be of more benefit to public

institutions who rank in the middle grade in attracting students (Fisher, 2009).

Finances in Intercollegiate Athletics

Spending in athletics is a topic of considerable discussion and has been described as both

an arms race (Orszag & Israel, 2009; Tsitsos & Nixon, 2012) and a “runaway train” (Knight

Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2009, p. 26). According to a Knight Commission

public opinion poll, 78% of the public seems to believe that college sports are profitable (Knight

Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2006). However, expenditures consistently outpace

revenues in the multi-billion dollar enterprise of intercollegiate athletics (Knight Commission on

Intercollegiate Athletics, 2009).

For example, the NCAA examined revenues and expenditures among Division I athletic

programs between 2004-2009 and found that the increase in expenses during this six year period

was greater than the associated increase in revenues generated by athletics programs (Fulks,

2010). Among the top ten public institutions that spend the most on athletics, the average

operating budget for the athletics program increased more than 42% from $69 million to $98

million between 2005 and 2009 with the projected average to increase to $254 million by 2020

(Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010). In 2010, only 22 of the 227 Division I

public schools had more revenue than expenditures according to a USA Today analysis

(Berkowitz & Upton, 2012, May 15). Institutional spending on athletics has lead Hacker and

Dreifus (2010) to assert, “the athletics incubus has overtaken academic pursuits, compromised

the moral authority of educators, and gobbled up resources that should have gone to their basic

missions” (p. 156).

2013 Edition

Many athletic programs justify their increasing budgets on the premise that athletics

programs enhance the institution’s profile, encourage private giving, and increase the quality and

quantity of student applicant pools, although research does not consistently support a link

between these variables (Frank, 2004). With regard to academic quality, the most recent analysis

by the NCAA shows that there is no statistically significant relationship between increased

operating expenditures in athletics and higher ACT or SAT scores of the student body (Orszag &

Israel, 2009). Further, there is no correlation between increased spending on athletics and

winning (Litan, Orszag, & Orszag, 2003), which raises important questions regarding the

contemporary spending frenzy in intercollegiate athletics. As one observer notes, “The common

arguments frequently made to justify committing large resources to college athletics –that they

directly or indirectly support the school’s educational mission or its finances –do not stand up to

empirical scrutiny” (Zimbalist, 1999, p. 171).

Still, many institutions impose mandatory student fees, provide an annual subsidy, and/or

receive state support to supplement revenue streams generated by athletics programs in order to

balance the athletics budget (Suggs, 2009). A USA Today analysis of financial data available

through open-records laws revealed “[m]ore than $800 million in student fees and university

subsidies are propping up athletic programs at the nation's top sports colleges, including

hundreds of millions in the richest conferences” (Gillium, Upton, & Berkowitz, 2010, para. 1). In

one of the most flagrant examples, USA Today found that Rutgers University subsidized its

athletic budget with more than $26 million in 2010 while negotiated raises for employees were

suspended in an effort to save $30 million due to reduced state funds (Berkowitz & Upton,

2011). USA Today reported that Rutgers spent in excess of $115 million to subsidize its

athletics budget between 2006 and 2010. The 2010 subsidy to the athletic department occurred

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

at a time when Rutgers raised student tuition and fees and implemented cost containment

measures in academic departments while the head coaches of men’s football and women’s

basketball each earned bonuses without leading their respective teams to a championship

(Eichelberger & Staley, 2011) .

To help distinguish among revenue types in its reporting, the NCAA now differentiates

between generated revenue from ticket sales, concessions, media deals, NCAA payouts,

corporate sponsorships, private giving, etc. and allocated revenue including direct transfers from

the institution’s general fund, indirect support such as utilities payments not charged to athletics,

mandatory student fees, and local and state government contributions (Fulks, 2010). The most

recent analysis of revenues and expenditures among Division I schools was conducted by the

NCAA in 2010. The analysis affirmed that institutional allocations to athletics increased in all

Division I subdivisions between 2004 and 2009 (Fulks, 2010). The amount of money derived

from mandatory student fees appears to be growing as well. The Center for College

Affordability found that between the 2004-2005 and 2008-2009 academic years, the average

subsidy to athletics in the form of student fees per FTE increased 28.1% (Denhart & Vedder,

2010).

With the significant amount of funds entwined in intercollegiate athletics, the line

between amateurism and professionalism is increasingly blurred. The NCAA vigorously defends

the position that “A basic purpose of this Association is to…retain a clear line of demarcation

between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports” (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2011b, p. 1). However, the NCAA has been criticized for enabling lucrative

television contracts to permeate Division I intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA is perhaps the

largest benefactor of such arrangements – in 2010, the NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion

2013 Edition

deal with CBS/Turner for coverage of the March Madness tournament ("CBS, Turner...", 2010,

April 22). Television revenues and marketing dollars for intercollegiate athletics “are the largest

paths to sizable revenue” according to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics

(2009, p. 21) and television revenues have been described as “the goose that lays the golden eggs

for intercollegiate athletics” (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 129).

In exploring the effects of money on commercialism, Sheehan (2000) used regression

analysis to analyze publicly-available revenues and expenditures in intercollegiate athletics. The

results of Sheehan’s analysis indicated that men’s football and basketball programs are properly

classified as fitting a professional, rather than amateur, model due to the tendency of these

programs to be profitable. While some of these programs are profitable, the Knight Commission

warns that:

…reported operating surpluses from the two marquee sports [of football and men’s

basketball] were not enough to cover the costs of an athletic department’s other sports

offerings, whether it be 14 or 24 squads. The myth of the business model – that football

and men’s basketball cover their own expenses and fully support non-revenue sports – is

put to rest by an NCAA study finding that 93 institutions ran a deficit for the 2007-08

school year, averaging losses of $9.9 million. (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate

Athletics, 2009, p. 11)

Clearly, overreliance on an institution’s football or men’s basketball program as revenue-

generating sports can have a detrimental financial impact on an athletic department’s overall

balance sheet.

Spending on athletics is often scrutinized by making comparisons against institutional

spending on other educational expenses. An analysis of spending among Football Bowl

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

Subdivision (FBS) conferences (the most prestigious football conference among NCAA Division

I schools) shows that, on average, the median athletics spending per student-athlete is 6.3 times

greater than the median academic spending per student (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate

Athletics, 2010). The most lopsided spending occurs in the Southeastern Conference at a rate

10.8 times that of per-student expenditures (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics,

2010).

The phenomenon is not limited to FBS schools. Between 2006-2010, the Chronicle of

Higher Education (Chronicle) found that one-third of Football Championship Series (FCS)

schools increased their athletics spending more than 40%, and the data did not include capital

spending (Sander & Fuller, 2011) . According to the Chronicle’s analysis, only ten FCS schools

reduced their athletics spending during this period (Fuller, 2011) . The Knight Commission’s

most updated financial data also found that spending per student-athlete and the institutional

subsidy to athletics each outpaced academic spending in the FBS and FCS between 2004-2009

(Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2011a, 2011b).

In examining differences between institutional subsidies to athletic programs and overall

library expenditures among 64 public research university members of the Association of

Research Libraries, Lombardi (2012) found that subsidies to athletics ranged from 0 to 1.52

times the overall spending on libraries. Half of the 64 schools included in the analysis allocated

less than 33% of total library expenditures. Lombardi opined that “we might expect [NCAA

Division I] programs to limit their institutional subsidies to less than a third of their library

budget. That may, however, be asking too much” (2012, para. 17) .

Most athletics programs are not self-sufficient and cannot balance their budgets

(Clotfelter, 2011; Duderstadt, 2000). While this conclusion is widely accepted, it remains

2013 Edition

difficult to make meaningful institutional comparisons between athletics programs because of the

variance in accounting practices and the challenges in accessing this information (Goff, 2000;

Zimbalist, 1999). All athletics programs must submit annual reports to the United States

Department of Education pursuant to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. §

1092(e) (1994)) , and these reports include aggregated data regarding expenses and revenues

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009). However, because the data are reported in aggregate

form, the data reflect only total revenues and expenditures reported by the athletic program and

do not permit robust comparisons between institutions.

The NCAA took steps to remedy inconsistent accounting practices in 2004 when it

updated its procedures for how member institutions should report revenue and expenditures,

although differences in accounting practices nonetheless persist (Hodge & Tanlu, 2009). Much

of what is known about spending in athletics is due to NCAA reporting, Equity in Athletics

Disclosure Act compliance reports, and media outlets making requests under state open records

laws. Suggs (2009) observes, “Even after plugging away for three decades, economists still have

no way of saying how much sports truly cost their institutions, much less what their opportunity

costs might be” (p. 29). The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2010) has recently

called for greater transparency regarding spending in college sports, including more streamlined

ways of comparing athletic spending and education spending at NCAA institutions.

Coaches’ salaries – particularly men’s Division I basketball and men’s football coaches –

remain central to increased scrutiny of spending in athletics. A recent analysis of university-

based salaries of men’s basketball and football coaches in Top 25 programs since 2003 lends

weak support for the prevailing belief that higher coaches’ salaries are related to sustained

athletic success (Tsitsos & Nixon, 2012). This same study observed that coaches’ salaries

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

increased, particularly among public institutions, during a period of time in which many

universities were faced with budget cuts.

Coaches’ salaries have been scrutinized in terms of their relative position to senior

faculty and administrators as well as through examination of how winning is incentivized as

contrasted against academic performance of student-athletes. Adjusting for inflation, Clotfelter

(2011) determined that the average compensation of full professors, presidents, and football

coaches increased 30%, 90%, and 652%, respectively, from the 1985/1986 academic year to the

2009/2010 academic year at 44 public universities for which data were available. In another

analysis of incentive pay for 11 football coaches at big-time athletics programs, Clotfelter (2011)

revealed that performance-based incentives for winning exceeded bonuses for student-athlete

academic performance by more than 12 times. The growing gap between athletics spending

versus academics spending has inspired many calls for reform, including one scholar (Pine,

2010) who has called upon institutions of higher education to replace their institutional athletics

subsidy with tuition waivers for student-athletes (and nothing more) to enhance the nexus

between academics and athletics (Pine, 2010). It does not appear that institutions will heed this

call or reform anytime in the near future.

Future Discussion and Implications

Research about the impact of intercollegiate athletics on higher education remains

relatively limited in comparison to the heated debate that surrounds the topic. In reviewing the

literature on the issues concerning intercollegiate athletics, it is apparent that college athletics

affects the major aspect of higher education institutions including students, academic integrity,

financial aspects, and institutional reputation. The research on intercollegiate athletics has

focused on the implications of intercollegiate athletics as a separate entity that influences higher

2013 Edition

education. Future research concerning the impact of intercollegiate athletics on higher education

may require a different approach. Franklin (2006) suggested that understanding the relationship

between intercollegiate athletics and the higher education mission required viewing college

athletics “as central to…the…academic enterprise” (p. 23). Brand (2006) advocated a similar

approach arguing that athletic programs should be incorporated into the mission of higher

education institutions. The author emphasized the perspective that the physical and skilled

aspect of higher education must be valued in the same manner as the intellectual processes of

academe. In other words, the harmony between mind and body should carry over into the

mission of higher education (Brand, 2006).

Considering the amount of money that flows in and out of intercollegiate athletics

budgets, it will continue to be important to scrupulously and consistently record and report

expenditures and revenues of individual programs so that meaningful trends and benchmarking

can occur. Considering the inconsistent literature regarding athletics’ impact on private giving,

institutional presence, and other potential benefits of athletics to institutions, research efforts

should continue to better determine the true impact – including the opportunity costs associated

with subsidizing athletics (Getz & Siegfried, 2012). Further, adherence to the Knight

Commission’s recommendations to enhance transparency regarding athletic finances, especially

with regard to monitoring growth rates of academic versus athletic spending – will help

institutions make important decisions regarding alignment of limited fiscal resources with

institutional priorities.

References

Berkowitz, S., & Upton, J. (2011, June 28). Rutgers athletic department needs fees, funds to stay

afloat. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-28-

rutgers-athletic-department-subsidies_n.htm

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

Berkowitz, S., & Upton, J. (2012, May 15). Budget disparity growing among NCAA Division I

schools. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-

05-15/budget-disparity-increase-college-athletics/54960698/1

Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2003). Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational

values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brand, M. (2006). The role and value of intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal of the

Philosophy of Sport, 33(1), 9-20. doi: 10.1080/00948705.2006.9714687

Bush, B. V., Casteñeda, C., Hardy, D. E., & Kastinas, S. G. (2009). What the numbers say about

community colleges and athletics. In L. S. Hagedorn & D. Horton (Eds.), New Directions

for Community Colleges (pp. 5-14).

Camp, W. (1893). Walter Camp's book of college sports. New York: The Century Company.

Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books

CBS Turner win TV rights to tourney. (2010, April 22) Retrieved June 3, 2012, from

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307

Clotfelter, C. T. (2011). Big-time sports in American universities. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Denhart, M., & Vedder, R. (2010). Intercollegiate athletics subsidies: A regressive tax. Retrieved

from

http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/ICA_Subsidies_RegressiveTax.pdf

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university

president's perspective. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Eichelberger, C., & Staley, O. (2011, August 16). Rutgers athletics grow at expense of

academics unlike at Texas. Bloomberg. Retrieved from

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/rutgers-boosting-athletics-at-expense-of-

academics-fails-to-emulate-texas.html

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(e) (1994).

Fisher, B. (2009). Athletics success and institutional rankings. In J. D. Toma & D. A. Kramer

(Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 45-53).

Flowers, R. D. (2009). Institutionalized hypocrisy: The myth of intercollegiate athletics.

American Educational History Journal, 36(2), 343-360. Retrieved from

http://content.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu

Frank, R. H. (2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success,

student quality, and donations. Retrieved from

http://www.knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/kcia_frank_report_2004.pdf

Franklin, B. (2006). College athletics as a model for promoting academic integrity in higher

education. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 19(1), 15-23. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/

Fulks, D. L. (2010). Revenues & expenses: 2004-2009 NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics

programs report. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_2010.pdf

Fuller, A. (2011, June 26). Sports-spending laggards feel the pain, play catch-up. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Sports-Spending-

Laggards-Feel/128026/

2013 Edition

Gayles, J. G., & Hu, S. (2009). Athletes as students: Ensuring positive cognitive and affective

outcomes. In J. D. Toma & D. A. Kramer (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education

(pp. 101-107).

Getz, M., & Siegfried, J. (2012). College sports: The mystery of the zero-sum game. Change, 52-

59. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00091383.2012.636006

doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.636006

Gillium, J., Upton, J., & Berkowitz, S. (2010, January 13). Amid funding crisis, college athletics

soak up subsidies, fees. USA Today. Retrieved from

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-

analysis_N.htm

Goff, B. (2000). Effects of university athletics on the university: A review and extension of

empirical assessment. Journal of Sports Management, 14, 85-104.

Gurin, A., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2011). Diversity and higher education: Theory

and impact on educational outcomes. In S. Harper & J. Jackson (Eds.), Introduction to

American Higher Education (pp. 249-277). New York: Routledge.

Hacker, A., & Dreifus, C. (2010). Higher education?: How colleges are wasting our money and

failing our kids -- and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Times Books.

Hirko, S. (2009). Intercollegiate athletics and modeling multiculturalism. In J. D. Toma & D. A.

Kramer (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 91-100).

Hodge, F., & Tanlu, L. (2009). Finances and college athletics. In J. L. Hoffman, J. S. Antony &

D. D. Alfaro (Eds.), Data-Driven Decision Making in Intercollegiate Athletics (Vol. 144,

pp. 7-18): Wiley Periodicals, Inc. doi: 10.1002/ir.309

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2006). Public opinion poll executive summary.

Retrieved from http://knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/pollresults1-20-06.pdf

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2009). College sports 101: A primer on

money, athletics, and higher education in the 21st century. Retrieved from

http://www.knightcommission.org/collegesports101

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2010). Restoring the balance: Dollars, values,

and the future of college sports. Retrieved from

http://www.knightcommission.org/images/restoringbalance/KCIA_Report_F.pdf

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2011a). Football Bowl Subdivision: Athletics

spending and institutional funding to athletics growing faster than academic spending.

Retrieved from http://knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_fig_fbs_10.19.11.pdf

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2011b). Football Championship Subdivision:

Athletics spending per athlete 3 to 12 times greater than academic spending per student.

Retrieved from http://knightcommission.org/images/pdfs/2011_table_a_10.19.11.pdf

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (n.d.). Presidential control and leadership.

Retrieved from http://www.knightcommission.org/presidential-control-a-

leadership/background37

Lawrence, J. H. (2009). Faculty perceptions of intercollegiate athletics. In J. L. Hoffman, J. S.

Anthony & D. D. Alfaro (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research (pp. 103-112).

Lawrence, J. H., Mullin, C. M., & Horton, D. (2009). Considerations for expanding, eliminating,

and maintaining community college athletic teams and programs. In L. S. Hagedorn & D.

Horton (Eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges (pp. 39-51).

Lawrence, J. H., Ott, M., & Hendricks, L. (2009). Athletic reform and faculty perceptions. In J.

D. Toma & D. A. Kramer (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 73-81).

Academic Perspectives in Higher Education Journal

Lindo, J. M., Swensen, I. D., & Waddell, G. R. (in press). Are big-time sports a threat to student

achievement? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1-35. Retrieved from

http://pages.uoregon.edu/jlindo/BigTimeSportsAndStudentAchievement.pdf

Litan, R. E., Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2003). The empirical effects of collegiate athletics:

An interim report. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/faculty/PDF/baseline.pdf

Lombardi, J. V. (2012, June 1). Sports subsidies and library spending. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/06/01/comparing-

universities-sports-subsidies-library-spending-essay

Mattingly, P. H. (2007). The political culture of American's antebellum colleges. In H. S.

Wechsler, L. F. Goodchild & L. Eisenmann (Eds.), The History of Higher Education (pp.

237-253). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Mixon, F. G., & Trevino, L. J. (2005). From kickoff to commencement: The positive role of

intercollegiate athletics in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 24, 97-102.

doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2003.09.005

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010a). Core values. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/core+v

alues+landing+page

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010b). History. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/about+

the+ncaa+history

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011a). Academic information about colleges.

Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Academics/How+academic+refor

m+is+measured

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011b). NCAA 2011-2012 division I manual.

Retrieved from

http://www.ncaapublications.com/DownloadPublication.aspx?download=D112.pdf

Orszag, J. M., & Israel, M. (2009). The empirical effects of colegiate athletics: An updated based

on 2004-2007 data. Retrieved from

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/DI_MC_BOD/DI_BOD/2009/April/04,%20_Empirical_Effects.p

Pine, N. (2010). The role of athletics in the academy: An alternative approach to financial

investment. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(4), 475-480. doi:

10.1177/0193723510383849

Sander, L., & Fuller, A. (2011, June 26). In athletics, ambitions compete with costs. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/In-Athletics-

Ambitions/128033/

Sheehan, R. G. (2000). The professionalization of college sports. In J. Losco & B. L. Fife (Eds.),

Higher Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millenium (pp. 133-158).

Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Suggs, W. (2005, May 20). NCAA Imposes 'Death Penalty' on a Team for the First Time in 18

Years. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/NCAA-Imposes-Death-Penalty-/13348

Suggs, W. (2009). Old challenges and new opportunities for studying the financial aspects of

intercollegiate athletics. In J. D. Toma & D. A. Kramer (Eds.), New Directions for

Higher Education (pp. 11-22).

2013 Edition

Thwing, C. F. (1906). A history of higher education in America. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books

Tsitsos, W., & Nixon, H. L. (2012). The star wars arms race in college athletics: Coaches' pay

and athletic program status. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 36(1), 68-88. doi:

10.1177/0193723511433867

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/athletics/eada.html

Umbach, P. D., Palmer, M. M., Kuh, G. D., & Hannah, S. T. (2006). Intercollegiate athletes and

effective practices: Winning combination or losing effort? Research in Higher Education,

47(6), 709-733. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9012-9

Williams, M. R., Byrd, L., & Pennington, K. (2008). Intercollegiate athletics at the community

college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 453-461. doi:

10.1080/10668920701884463

Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2006). Community college presidents' perceptions of

intercollegiate athletics. The Community College Enterprise, 12(2), 91-104. Retrieved

from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu

Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college

sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.