Texas A&M University Commerce
Commerce Dallas Rockwall Mesquite Corsicana Midlothian
www.tamuc.edu
Financial Inequalities among College Athletics
Betz, Jordan
Health & Human Performance
Texas A&M University Commerce
Gwendolyn M. Weatherford, Ph.D.
Abstract
Proposed Method
Purpose
Since the beginning of intercollegiate athletics, the dynamic of
financial inequality stemmed only to be consistently supported by
varying factors such as broadcasting policy, Bowl Championship
Series, NCAA distribution of funds, and advancements in
technology.
Such immense gaps of equality among athletic programs have
adverse affects on numerous shareholders including the athletic
programs, student athletes, spectators, and corporate industry.
The examination of just how great the financial inequality is, as
well as how it affects the diverse stakeholders serves as the
purpose of this study.
The complexity of the situation has recently been emphasized
with conversations surrounding the NCAAs discussions of
realignments. These conversations surrounding the growing
complexity of financial inequality make it necessary to further
examine the factors associated.
Introduction
The association between finances and sport is not something
new to todays intercollegiate athletic programs, rather a mature
one. It is with growing funding inequities among some
conference, that the topic is gaining further attention.
The gap between those programs that have and those who are
lacking is ever growing; creating affects that trickle down to the
student bodies.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of studentathlete subsidies on the various stakeholders at hand is pertinent
to understand what results of such differences and what can be
done to help maintain the situation.
In a single NCAA conference the difference in spending
between two competing athletic programs can differ by $100
million dollars!
The top-tier spenders, programs such as the University of Texas,
have operating revenues and can spend approximately six times
more than programs such asWestern Michigan University
(Dunn, 2013).
Top 10 Funded Athletic Programs in the NCAA
Funding
Rank Institution
(Millions)
1.
University of Texas-Austin
$150
2.
Ohio State University
$130
3.
University of Alabama
$124.5
4.
University of Florida
$123.5
5.
University of Michigan
$123
6.
Pennsylvania State University
$116
7.
Louisiana State University
$107
8.
University of Tennessee
$104
9.
University of Oklahoma
$104
10. Auburn University
$104
Low resourced schools, in effort to keep up, will search for new
revenue streams, including greater access to institutional
resources[o]ther low-resourced schools might choose to simply
take it on the chin, continue to compete, but acknowledge that
winning is an elusive goal (Dunn, 2013).
Health & Human Performance
Health & Human Performance
The purposed methodology for this research is to identify the top
ranked Division I institution in terms of financial spending for
athletics program, as well as the bottom ranked institution.
Target Audience
Two target audiences will consist of current 2014-2015 full time
students, as well as current academic and coaching staff. Further
categorization will take place based on education level (example:
Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, etc.), gender, age, and
institution classification (example: student athlete, student only,
administrator, athletic coach, etc.).
Apparatus
The questionnaire will use a Likert scale to access and distinguish
institutional views and knowledge base surrounding the current
spending habits regarding athletics at the designated institution
Procedure
The anonymous questionnaire will be provided by email to all
institutional academic faculty, current students, and athletic faculty.
Those willing to participate will have several weeks to complete the
online survey. As surveys are completed, the results will be
collected anonymously and recorded for further analysis.
Discussion
Although research suggests the widening gap among Division I
athletic programs, little has been collected regarding the primary
shareholders in terms of view, understanding, and opinions
towards the steep price of athletic competition. With viscous
fissures between the institutions that have the financial ability to
produce competitive results and those relying on the pockets of
struggling college students to stay in the arms race, the need for
review is valid. Institutions will be forced to make decisions that
impact current and future students, faculty, and athletic programs.
Conclusion
Growing concerns for such institutions include hiked tuition rates,
costly student fees, and declining state support (Dunn, 2013). It is
suggested that this research acts as a base for further research
regarding potential NCAA realignments to assist with addressing
the growing issue of financial inequality in Division I athletics.
Health & Human Performance
