News-Sentinel.com

Money Matters

A program's success revolves around money -- how much it gets, how much it generates.

By Dave Benson of The News-Sentinel



News-Sentinel photo
Funding equalityAn athletics program's success revolves around money -- how much it gets, how much it generates.

On Sept. 22, 2001, the University of Notre Dame football and women's volleyball teams hosted contests in their respective arenas.

The Fighting Irish football team sold out Notre Dame Stadium with more than 80,000 people in the seats to see the squad take on Michigan State. The game was nationally televised by NBC, and there were plenty of souvenirs to be snapped up by fans.

Not more than 1,000 feet away from the football stadium, only 669 fans showed up at the 12,000-seat Joyce Center to watch the Fighting Irish women's volleyball team take on Syracuse. Television and radio coverage was nowhere to be found, and souvenirs were sparse compared with the smorgasbord of trinkets offered at the football game.

Notre Dame's football team made $31 million in 2000-2001. The volleyball team contributed to a women's sports schedule that lost nearly $7 million in 2000-2001.

It's little wonder when it comes to funding Notre Dame's football program that it gets the lion's share of funding -- at the expense of women's athletics, even with Title IX. Title IX is a federal law that assures women are treated fairly in schools. The law turns 30 years old on Sunday.

Notre Dame is not alone is this regard. Every football program in the Big Ten turned a profit during the 2000-2001 school year, while the women's athletic teams at every school but Minnesota lost money over the same period of time.

But do women's athletic teams lose money because of a lack of athletic department support, or do athletic departments skimp on support because women's athletic teams lose money?

* * *

Budget inequities

Women's athletic programs at Big Ten schools received an average of 30.5 percent of their schools' athletic budgets for the 2000-2001 school year. Statewide, the number was 36.2 percent over the same period of time. All Big Ten schools but the University of Minnesota and University of Iowa budgeted more money for their football teams than for all of their women's athletic teams combined.

Naturally, this leads to some inequity.

"Obviously, the sports that get more respect, you just have to deal with it," said Purdue University sophomore track athlete Shannon Kelley, a graduate of Northrop High School. "Both track programs were combined and are under the direction of one head coach. We both stay at the same places. The equipment is equal.

"But football and basketball, they get their own Purdue plane. We have to go to Indianapolis to fly out. They get a lot more stuff. They're the money teams. Women's basketball gets those things, too."

Part of the blame lies not in the athletic departments at these institutions, but with the school administrations.

"Part of the problem is that a number of institutions do not see gender equity as an institutional issue. They see it as an athletic department challenge," said Sandy Barbour, senior associate athletic director at Notre Dame. "The athletic department is left within its current financial structure to make up the inequality."

But to absolve athletic

departments of all blame would be foolish. Men's athletic teams have traditionally received more money than women's athletic teams. Most athletic departments have fallen into the habit of maintaining the status quo.

"There are different options in terms of building an operating budget," Barbour said. "Do you build from the ground on up? Do you take last year's budget and add in a 2 or 3 percent growth rate? If you do that, you get stuck in these traditions."

The budgeting of money in athletic departments appears to have become a reward system. Those programs that make money continue to receive large amounts. Those that lose money continue to get the short end of the financial stick.

"Certainly, the moneymaking ability of a program plays a part, more so at some institutions than others," Barbour said. "You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you."

And the moneymaking sports generate a lot of food. At Notre Dame, the football program made $31 million and the men's basketball team made almost $32,000 in 2000-2001. All of Notre Dame's other sports lost roughly $11 million combined. The Fighting Irish's moneymakers kept the other teams going.

"The methods vary from institution to institution," Barbour said. "Most take all the sources of revenue and pool them together. The largest is football. You have television revenue. You have the football gate. You have other football guarantees.

"Men's and women's basketball are the same way at some institutions. You take all the sources of revenue and all the expenses and hope they balance out."

* * *

Sharing the wealth

Some contend that more women's athletic teams could turn a profit if athletic departments would share the wealth.

"You have to invest, although the immediate results aren't going to happen," Indiana University women's basketball coach Kathi Bennett said. "If you're looking at next year or for results to happen immediately, that's not going to happen. You have to look at the future. There aren't many willing to take that risk. That could be slowing us down."

Notre Dame has seen some results from that type of investment.

"A couple years ago, we devoted resources to promoting women's basketball," Barbour said. "We saw a tremendous increase in attendance. What you have to avoid is the trap where you say, 'This sport is a moneymaker, so let's keep giving it money. This sport hasn't made money, so don't give it any.' Many women's programs have fallen into that latter category."

But some women's coaches and athletes have resigned themselves to the fact that women's programs will always receive less money than their male counterparts.

"I have friends on other teams," said Rholonda Ash, a sophomore track athlete at Butler University and a Harding High School graduate. "They may not get equal treatment because they're not as strong as other programs at the school. Of course, if you have a great program that brings in more money than a women's program, that gives them the opportunity to do more things."

"We need to compare apples to apples. I'm still (in) a non-revenue sport, although they've changed the term now to Olympic sport," said Michigan State track coach Angela Goodman, a South Side High School graduate. "Our budget is going to be different."

Some schools are trying to change the situation. Notre Dame has formed an institutional Title IX task force, of which Barbour is a member. All Big Ten schools have student service departments made up of athletic administrators who function as part of athletic departments. One of their focuses is gender equity. Such solutions are starting to turn things around.

"Being on a team that involves partial scholarships, they have a certain number of whole scholarships they can give," Kelley said. "Some guys' teams don't have as many as we do because football sucks a lot of those up. As a female athlete, you're kind of at an advantage if you want more money. They have to have it for you."

Another strategy has been the process of dividing a school's athletic teams into tiers. Although athletic administrators who do this may be well-intentioned, tiering may just be a way to maintain the status quo.

The process happens when an athletic department divides up its men's and women's sports based on the competition levels it wants to achieve. Teams in tier one would be expected to compete for national titles and would receive a full complement of scholarships, coaches and priority in budgeting.

Teams in tier two would have a national presence. They would be ranked in various media and coaches polls, but not near the top. These teams would receive all or most of the scholarships available and most or all of the coaching positions available. These teams would receive less money, however.

The final tier would be comprised of teams that would not compete at a national-championship level. They would receive few scholarships and minimal coaching staffs. Their budgets would be small.

"It has to do with the goals of the athletic programs," Barbour said. "You have to ask yourself, 'Do we want to be excellent in everything? Do we want to be mediocre in everything? Do we want to provide as many opportunities as possible?' That's the key from a gender equity standpoint."