College athletics have come under fire over the issues of coaches’ salaries and the failure to oversee player behavior. Mark Emmert, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) shares his thoughts about reclaiming the public trust in institutional management.
Should institutions be rethinking coaches’ compensation and contracts? Can the NCAA play a role in this?
Coaches’ compensation has become a hotly debated topic on campus and with the public over the last few years as salaries and other compensation have risen to seven-figure packages. Universities are often faced with market realities that put campuses in competition for the same coaching talents as professional teams. It is difficult for a university president to unilaterally decide not to meet market prices, and it is illegal for presidents to decide as a group to cap what they will pay. In terms of budget impact, the real concern is more often about the number of coaches employed rather than the high compensation package of one or two coaches. But the NCAA neither makes hiring decisions nor can it attempt to set market prices. That is appropriately left up to individual institutions. Only they can determine the right level of compensation for a football coach or a physics professor.
Will colleges be able to sustain their current models for financing athletics, especially during these difficult economic times?
Our current economic conditions are stressing all dimensions of higher education, including athletics. But the impact varies greatly among institutions. Division II and III institutions absorb nearly all the expenses associated with their athletics programs, with the cost averaging between 4 and 6 percent of total institutional spending. Ironically, Division I institutions spend the same percentage on athletics, but they are far more likely to be criticized for excessive subsidization of athletics. Of course, the overall dollar amounts involved are larger because the resources available to flagship universities are considerably greater than those for smaller institutions.
The level of support from any college should be in proportion to the value received, just like any other portion of the budget. Some institutions may discover that their support of athletics rises to a level that doesn’t align with value received when compared to other priorities, and for them the current model for financing athletics may no longer be sustainable. For others, the current model works well and matches costs and benefits. These, of course, are judgments to be made by boards and administrations.
These critical issues are often seen as limited to Division I athletics. What concerns do you see looming for Divisions II and III?
The need to develop new revenue sources and to embrace commercial entities—such as campuswide pouring rights or corporate underwriting for research—is strongly felt within Division I but is increasingly part of the landscape for Divisions II and III. This need has introduced levels of commercialism that make some people in both higher education and the public it serves uncomfortable with the impact on amateurism.
You were a college president once. What should boards have on their radar screens regarding the future of college athletics?
As guardians of the values of their institutions, boards should understand that the most important athletics issue before them is the intersection of the collegiate model of athletics and the commercial model. The relationships that this has created should not abridge the values held by the university as a whole. For example, sponsorship in athletics by organizations that objectify women should never be acceptable within the values structure endorsed by the university. In addition, boards should examine any commercial relationship with regard for the impact it may have on either the entire student body or cohorts within the general student population. First and foremost, intercollegiate athletics should promote the success of our students. Boards can help all of us keep our eyes on the ball.
Share on LinkedIn
