No, that’s not a typo. These days, it seems, it is all about the dollars. Even in college sports – or maybe especially in college sports.
The headline on this week’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday Edition, blared “Raising Funds – and eyebrows” – the story about the push to raise money for colleges through athletics made the front page. It seems especially fitting to run the story during football season (and maybe just a little self-serving that it focused on Temple and Penn State Universities less than a week before the well-known Nittany Lions pick on the Owls in Philadelphia) but it’s hardly news. The role of the dollar in college sports has been under fire for more than a year now, from the IRS inquiry into whether the tax-exempt status of colleges should remain considering the “empires” that have been built on the backs of taxpayers to the controversial salaries paid to coaches to Congress’ debate about the role of sports in secondary education – including basketball. What has come out of this debate is largely nothing – a lot of drama on both sides about the value (or not) of sports programs at colleges and universities. While there should be pressure to answer this debate in a very public way, there isn’t. Perhaps it’s impolitic to do it with football playoffs looming in the distance – too many OSU fans in Congress (yes, that’s OSU pictured above)? And then there’s basketball… And then, baseball. It’s just so darned inconvenient. Only Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has dared bring it up again recently; he promised last month to take another look at whether tax-exempt status was appropriate – but then, who are we kidding? He went to the University of Northern Iowa.
Despite the odd criticisms, the cash continues to pile up at these schools. That Inquirer story that I mentioned earlier reported on an all-day seminar for Penn State coaches to learn how not to coach but to solicit donations to the tune of $100 million. And they’re hardly alone. Athletic departments at colleges and universities now count on their staff to raise money.
Of course, there are donations and then there are donations. Schools like the University of Tennessee realize how to get the most dollars from their donors – like other schools, UT requires a substantial donor commitment to secure good seats for season tickets for football season: $25,000 and five years. Interesting, isn’t it, that a $25,000 “donation” to the Vols qualifies for a tax deduction even though the donor intent is hardly charitable.
Not true, you say? Of course, it is. In 1998, 85% of all donations to colleges and universities were nonathletic. In 2003, that number had decreased to 74%. In contrast, money donated directly to school athletics programs has skyrocketed with contributions soaring at more than $30 million at the University of Virginia, Louisiana State University, Stanford and more. If alums are feeling more charitable, it likely has to do with those restrictions to get season tickets and new capital projects for stadiums.
I don’t know what the answer is. I know that it costs money to run a program. And I know that programs attract students (my brother wanted to go to UNC at Chapel Hill because of Sam Hill, Michael Jordan, and Dean Smith). And maybe that’s a good thing.
But here’s the other part. I love sports. I love college sports. I love that, in some colleges, kids still love to play the game and aren’t sucked into their own press and the lure of money that surrounds the game a la Reggie Bush. There’s a reason it’s called amateur. It was never supposed to be about the money.
That’s naive, I know. Money will change the game.
But for now, maybe somewhere there are still some kids playing because they like to play. And maybe there’s a coach that will just let them do it.
Go Owls.
This is really interesting to me because I used to work in college development and fundraising. Personally, I wish there was some kind of program set in place so that if you donate to an educational institution, at least half (or whatever percentage) of the donation must go for educational purposes. I think people forget that the players are kids and it really is just an extra-curricular activity. Very few college players actually make football a career. Shouldn’t their educations come first?
I agree, Allison – the NCAA ran a great series of commercials about the fact that most student athletes go “pro” in something else. And even if you turn pro athlete, chances are that your career will be very short. There are precious few Brett Favres in the world.
Many times when boosters make donations to athletic programs it’s so they can “get” something – either the opportunity to purchase tickets, or better seats, or special meetings with the coaches, etc – Generally, the school will pro-rate the gift – as an example, if you make a donation to PSU athletics, 80% of the donation counts as a deductible gift (less the value of any “gifts with purchase” – such as sweatshirts, pins, plaques, lion shaped statues, and so on). But I, personally, feel that the sentiment behind the “gift” is so less altruistic – but we’re happy to take the deduction.
If you’re a Penn State fan, this week’s “The Penn State Story” focused on education – it was interesting to hear some of the kids (whether scripted or not) talk about how as a Penn State Athlete, they were there to get an education first, and that sports were just “extra”.
By the way – the Penn State Temple game is not until November 10th.
Thanks for the correction. KYW actually said it was being played this week. Maybe they figure if they hype it enough, people will accidentally stumble into an Owls game looking for Penn State. 🙂