Division III athletics have become more then high school athletes holding onto a dream and competing at the non-scholarship level of the National collegiate athletic association. From 2004 to 2012 the average cost of having a division III athletics program has gone up 200% (Fulks, 2013). From 2004 until 2012 the average cost per athlete has also gone up, from $3,500 to $5,800. This money does not even touch the levels that are being spent in Division I, but Division III athletics are on an upward trend of spending. The commitment to athletics in Division III has lead to money being spent on new sports and recreation facilities. So much so that it’s been put to question if there is an “arms race” to who can build the biggest and best facilities. In division I there has been almost 15 billion dollars spent on new facilities since 2000. From 2002-2008 50 brand new facilities were built on college campuses throughout the NCAA with thirteen of them being in division III. All of which cost more then 20 million dollars to the school. These small, mostly private schools are spending millions on Football fields, Gyms, indoor and outdoor tracks and student recreation centers. This battle seems almost unnecessary considering almost zero of these athletes will become professionals and in most cases athletics takes away around 20-25 hours of school work time to there student athletes. Looking at the research there seems to be three reasons why schools sell the idea of how a new facility can bring more then a large bill to the school. These points are first recruiting success that leads to athletic success and the enrollment bump in not only the student athletes but also the student population as a whole. Finally how the sch... ... middle of paper ... ...s sketch is shown to every alumni possible in efforts to fundraise in most cases 20 millions dollars plus needed to complete a new athletic center. Alumni are willing to give possibly millions of dollars because it can be considered a “charitable donation” and can help relieve their taxes. Colleges are essentially non-profit business and when they are donated to it is considered a “charitable donation”. If the athletic department cannot raise enough money by themselves they can turn to long term tax exempt bonds to help offset the costs. A bond isn’t all that different from a loan in the sense that it is, in its most basic form, a contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals. These bonds can be spread out up to Thirty years and in most cases will be paid back with ease. Other ways schools can pay for facilities are with student fees.
Siegfried, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2000). The economics of sports facilities and their communities. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, , 95-114.
Considering the amount of money made annually by the athletic department, one would think that the college can give the college athletes more than just a few thousand dollars in scholarship money. Students should not be left with a medical bill due to services rendered on the field of a college team, nor should they be left penniless after giving their all to a college sport. Works Cited ESPN.com. The. " College Athletics Revenue and Expenses."
Until just recently according to an article in the Harvard Journal, “in the past twelve years, the amount of money generated by [football and basketball] has increased nearly 300%, such that they now fund almost all other sports programs” (Meshefejian). This points out that if student athletes were given a salary, the only athletes that would receive it are those in basketball and football. The less popular sports athletes would either switch to these two sports, or continue playing the sport they love while their colleagues thrive in the sport they love while getting an
Abstract: The Stadium construction boom continues, and taxpayers are being forced to pay for new high tech stadiums they don’t want. These new stadiums create only part-time jobs. Stadiums bring money in exclusively for professional leagues and not the communities. The teams are turning public money into private profit. Professional leagues are becoming extremely wealthy at the taxpayers expense. The publicly-funded stadium obsession must be put to a stop before athletes and coaches become even greedier. New stadiums being built hurt public schools, and send a message to children that leisure activities are more important than basic education. Public money needs to be used to for more important services that would benefit the local economy. Stadiums do not help the economy or save struggling towns. There are no net benefits from single purpose stadiums, and therefore the stadium obsessions must be put to a stop.
Luzer, Daniel. "College Guide: The Profit in College Sports." The Washington Monthly. N.p., 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
exposes most Division II sports drain athletic budgets and do not make a profit. ...
Student athletes should not be paid more than any other student at State University, because it implies that the focus of this university is that an extracurricular activity as a means of profit. Intercollegiate athletics is becoming the central focus of colleges and universities, the strife and the substantial sum of money are the most important factors of most university administration’s interest. Student athletes should be just as their title states, students. The normal college student is struggling to make ends meet just for attending college, so why should student athletes be exempt from that? College athletes should indeed have their scholarships cover what their talents not only athletically but also academically depict. Unfortunately, the disapproval resides when students who are making leaps academically are not being offered monetary congratulations in comparison to student athletes. If the hefty amount of revenue that colleges as a conglomerate are making is the main argument for why athletes should be paid, then what is to stop the National Clearinghouse from devising unjust standards? Eventually if these payments are to continue, coaches, organizations, and the NCAA Clearinghouse will begin to feel that “c...
Education and athletics, two of the most prized activities within our society. It's therefore no surprise that the two so closely link in one of our society’s favorite pastimes: college sports. Some believe that these two things benefit each other and some don’t. In the Forbes article titled “Rethinking the Benefits of College Athletics,” the author Jonathan Robe, a research fellow at the Center for College Affordability, explains, “In my short life, I’ve long been perplexed with the way many higher ed administrators–particularly college presidents–tend to laud college sports for the benefits they add to institutions of higher learning.“ He argues that college athletics do not benefit colleges and in some ways can even harm them. A majority of the supports are strong and, despite a few ineffective supports and language, Robe's argument is effective for its intended audience.
When is the public school system going to improve their fields and weight rooms to that of the private schools? The private schools have set the bar at a level where we should be at. Why are we telling our students everyday to work hard and you will get the rewards. We don’t ask our student athletes to lower their standards, so why should we. The number one goal of any high school athletic department is to assist the student athletes. (Austin, 2012-13)
Where is the money these athletic programs are earning going? There are many different categories in which a college program needs to put their money in order to create the best profit they can for the next
As with many things in life, running an athletic program cost a lot of money. No school can start a new program or maintain the current ones if they do not have the required amount of money to pay coaches, run facilities, and provide equipment for the players. The only way a new team can be started is if a the athletic program makes enough money to support a new men’s and women’s team. Depending on the size and popularity of the sport and school, most revenue is generated through lucrative television contracts and money given to each school from the NCAA. In 2015, the NCAA generated 912.3 million dollars in revenue, with the majority of that money coming from the television contracts. In 2012, ESPN agreed to a pay 7.3 billion dollars to televise the College Football Playoffs. With all of this money being spent on to televise the games, schools could look to sign bigger television contracts with the hopes of expanding their athletic
The payment of NCAA student-athletes will deteriorate the value of an education to the athletes. The value of an education for a young man or woman cannot be measured. It is our gate way to success as...
Financial aspects and profitability of college athletic programs is one of the most important arguments involved in this controversy. A group of people expresses that college athletic programs are over emphasized. The point they show on the first hand, is that athletic programs are too expensive for community colleges and small universities. Besides, statistics prove that financial aspects of college athletic programs are extremely questionable. It is true that maintenance, and facility costs for athletic programs are significantly high in comparison to academic programs. Therefore, Denhart, Villwock, and Vedder argue that athletic programs drag money away from important academics programs and degrade their quality. According to them, median expenditures per athlete in Football Bowl Subdivision were $65,800 in 2006. And it has shown a 15.6 percent median expenditure increase fro...
College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.
Herbet D. Simans, Derek Van Rheenen, and Martin V. Covington focuses their argument on academic motivation of student athletes and what drives them to want to succeed in the classroom as well as on the court or field. Although Flynn also focuses on academic motivation of student athletes, he also discusses how colleges tend to spend more money on sports related necessities for the students instead of towards their education. Flynn’s argument displays how colleges are basically a business...