NCAA's Emmert Says Women's Basketball Loses $14 million per year

[Charliebball]

Interesting facts about the profitability of NCAA sports:

NCAA president Emmert: Women’s basketball loses $14 million per year
Published on April 18, 201

Last week NCAA President Mark Emmert visited Utah State University. During remarks and a question and answer session with students he revealed some of the organization’s financial data reports theUtah Statesman.

• If the NCAA were to become a business, only two sports would make money: men’s basketball and football.
• Nationwide, only 22 athletic departments made money last year: “There are only two sports that have anything approaching positive cash flow or breaking even,” said Emmert. “And that is football or men’s basketball. You would never, ever play any other sport if it was a business. I don’t think any school would say ‘OK, I’ve got to pay $50,000 for an employee to run track for us.’ They just wouldn’t do it.”
• The men’s basketball tournament is the only postseason event that makes the NCAA money: $800 million per year of which $500 million goes to schools. Money is allocated based on enrollment, how many schools from each conference are in the tournament and how many games programs win. The NCAA gives $100 million to schools to spend however they want and $150 million goes to other championships.
• “Women’s basketball loses 14 million by itself,” Emmert said. “Once you get done splitting the money up, there isn’t much left. We can’t tell someone how much to pay a coach. We can’t tell them how to use the money they get.”
• “We take a poll every year (in men’s basketball) and 75 percent say they will be in the NBA. Only 1.5 percent really make it.”

Last month, Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist wrote in an article in the New York Times about the money allocated from the NCAA basketball tournaments:

Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team’s conference roughly $260,000 this year plus $260,000 each of the five following years. So the total value of a victory in the men’s tournament is approximately $1.56 million. By contrast, a win in the women’s tournament brings a reward of exactly zero dollars. That’s right, zero dollars.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Interesting facts about the profitability of NCAA sports:

NCAA president Emmert: Women’s basketball loses $14 million per year
Published on April 18, 201

Last week NCAA President Mark Emmert visited Utah State University. During remarks and a question and answer session with students he revealed some of the organization’s financial data reports theUtah Statesman.

• If the NCAA were to become a business, only two sports would make money: men’s basketball and football.
• Nationwide, only 22 athletic departments made money last year: “There are only two sports that have anything approaching positive cash flow or breaking even,” said Emmert. “And that is football or men’s basketball. You would never, ever play any other sport if it was a business. I don’t think any school would say ‘OK, I’ve got to pay $50,000 for an employee to run track for us.’ They just wouldn’t do it.”
• The men’s basketball tournament is the only postseason event that makes the NCAA money: $800 million per year of which $500 million goes to schools. Money is allocated based on enrollment, how many schools from each conference are in the tournament and how many games programs win. The NCAA gives $100 million to schools to spend however they want and $150 million goes to other championships.
• “Women’s basketball loses 14 million by itself,” Emmert said. “Once you get done splitting the money up, there isn’t much left. We can’t tell someone how much to pay a coach. We can’t tell them how to use the money they get.”
• “We take a poll every year (in men’s basketball) and 75 percent say they will be in the NBA. Only 1.5 percent really make it.”

Last month, Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist wrote in an article in the New York Times about the money allocated from the NCAA basketball tournaments:

Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team’s conference roughly $260,000 this year plus $260,000 each of the five following years. So the total value of a victory in the men’s tournament is approximately $1.56 million. By contrast, a win in the women’s tournament brings a reward of exactly zero dollars. That’s right, zero dollars.

Interesting stuff. Do you know why the men get that amount for FIVE ADDITIONAL years? Does the money get held back and disbursed over time?

 

[Adesmar123]

With Title IX, can't they just force people to go to both men's and women's games? Its only fair.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It just means the definition of profitability is too narrow. What Title 9 (I'm way over roman numerals) means is you do not look at profitabilty for men's sports and women's sport, you look at it together. So, when you say, we can't afford sports - hell, no one is making you have any at your college or university. Just shut it all down! Simple. Wait. Wait. Someone in the back is choking! Give the football coach the Heimlick maneuver and tell him I was just joking!

 

[UcMiami]

It is an interesting number that Emmert throws out there for women's basketball. I believe he just pulled it out of his a## because I doubt he knows what the value of the ESPN contract for the women's tournament is, seeing as it is a package contract for all sports other than the men's tournament - in effect the NCAA is using the women's tournament to subsidize every other sport in terms of their TV contract, while reserving the men's tournament as a stand alone contract.

He also bounces back and forth without reference to total revenues and NCAA revenues without any reference made to which he is talking about. The NCAA makes very little money off men's football, most of its revenue coming from the MCBB tournament - so point 2 is total school revenues; point 3 is NCAA specific revenues; point four is NCAA revenue again and not school revenue.

I find him a slimy creature using lots of verbiage to simulate nothing. If the NCAA became a business it would have to disassociate itself from the universities and would quickly become 'minor league' teams for the NFL and NBA - AND THE MONEY WOULD DRY UP PRETTY QUICKLY! Disassociated from their universities the teams would suddenly have to develop their own fan bases, pay players actual salaries, and negotiate their own TV contracts. and 2 out out of every 3 teams would fold in the first year - by year five you might have 30 or so teams competing in a single 'conference' and trying to find sponsorship from the NFL and NBA. They would be competing for viewership with whatever replaced them at the college level and no doubt we would start a new arms race all over again.

 

[CL82]

Interesting facts about the profitability of NCAA sports:

NCAA president Emmert: Women’s basketball loses $14 million per year
Published on April 18, 201

Last week NCAA President Mark Emmert visited Utah State University. During remarks and a question and answer session with students he revealed some of the organization’s financial data reports theUtah Statesman.

• If the NCAA were to become a business, only two sports would make money: men’s basketball and football.
• Nationwide, only 22 athletic departments made money last year: “There are only two sports that have anything approaching positive cash flow or breaking even,” said Emmert. “And that is football or men’s basketball. You would never, ever play any other sport if it was a business. I don’t think any school would say ‘OK, I’ve got to pay $50,000 for an employee to run track for us.’ They just wouldn’t do it.”
• The men’s basketball tournament is the only postseason event that makes the NCAA money: $800 million per year of which $500 million goes to schools. Money is allocated based on enrollment, how many schools from each conference are in the tournament and how many games programs win. The NCAA gives $100 million to schools to spend however they want and $150 million goes to other championships.
• “Women’s basketball loses 14 million by itself,” Emmert said. “Once you get done splitting the money up, there isn’t much left. We can’t tell someone how much to pay a coach. We can’t tell them how to use the money they get.”
• “We take a poll every year (in men’s basketball) and 75 percent say they will be in the NBA. Only 1.5 percent really make it.”

Last month, Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist wrote in an article in the New York Times about the money allocated from the NCAA basketball tournaments:

Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team’s conference roughly $260,000 this year plus $260,000 each of the five following years. So the total value of a victory in the men’s tournament is approximately $1.56 million. By contrast, a win in the women’s tournament brings a reward of exactly zero dollars. That’s right, zero dollars.

Hmm, somebody is worried about the next P5 iteration, or maybe the one after that.

 

[JordyG]

It is an interesting number that Emmert throws out there for women's basketball. I believe he just pulled it out of his a## because I doubt he knows what the value of the ESPN contract for the women's tournament is, seeing as it is a package contract for all sports other than the men's tournament - in effect the NCAA is using the women's tournament to subsidize every other sport in terms of their TV contract, while reserving the men's tournament as a stand alone contract.
I love it! Brother UC at the pulpit. The only arguments against the truth are fantasies, lies and damn lies.
He also bounces back and forth without reference to total revenues and NCAA revenues without any reference made to which he is talking about. The NCAA makes very little money off men's football, most of its revenue coming from the MCBB tournament - so point 2 is total school revenues; point 3 is NCAA specific revenues; point four is NCAA revenue again and not school revenue.

I find him a slimy creature using lots of verbiage to simulate nothing. If the NCAA became a business it would have to disassociate itself from the universities and would quickly become 'minor league' teams for the NFL and NBA - AND THE MONEY WOULD DRY UP PRETTY QUICKLY! Disassociated from their universities the teams would suddenly have to develop their own fan bases, pay players actual salaries, and negotiate their own TV contracts. and 2 out out of every 3 teams would fold in the first year - by year five you might have 30 or so teams competing in a single 'conference' and trying to find sponsorship from the NFL and NBA. They would be competing for viewership with whatever replaced them at the college level and no doubt we would start a new arms race all over again.

I love it! Brother UC at the pulpit. The only argument against true

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Hmm, somebody is worried about the next P5 iteration, or maybe the one after that.

Once you sell yourself, it's just a matter of time until the buyers figure out how they can avoid paying you twice. Athletes talking on some talking head ESPN show this morning about how unfair it is that only the NFL and NBA require you to go to the charade of college. I'm with them. Let it get even uglier with the greed on those two sports and let the rest of true college athletics get along with what they are about.

 

[JordyG]

I love it! Brother UC at the pulpit. The only argument against true

This should read "The only argument against the truth are fantasies, lies and damn lies". That's what I get for posting from a handheld.

 

[CocoHusky]

With Title IX, can't they just force people to go to both men's and women's games? Its only fair.

All kidding aside there was a pricing model proposed a few years back I'll try and find the article that said basically when you buy a ticket to a Men's Basketball or Football Game you should get a bunch of Women's basketball or swimming or lacrosse tickets with it because indirectly you are paying for it anyway.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I don't have much problem with his remarks - yes, he isn't 100% clear, but -

- women's basketball loses money. At least at the school level. I seriously doubt it makes much money for the NCAA as a whole, either. Whether his total is correct or not, who knows.
- most school's athletic programs as they report it don't make money. If there was "truth" and "standard reporting" the number that do might not be 22, but does anyone think it is a very high percentage of schools? I don't.

And UcM - for whatever its worth - I didn't find it hard to understand which aspect he was talking about (schools / NCAA).

 

[CTyankee]

This guy is right up there with that idiot writer from Boston...

What else could he do to poison the minds of those who might watch???

 

[arch]

This guy is right up there with that idiot writer from Boston...

What else could he do to poison the minds of those who might watch???

And the risk of being "right up there with that idiot writer from Boston", I would have guessed the losses from women's basketball were in the hundreds of millions.
I wonder what goes into these numbers. As we probably already know, cost accounting is as much art as science.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

And the risk of being "right up there with that idiot writer from Boston", I would have guessed the losses from women's basketball were in the hundreds of millions.
I wonder what goes into these numbers. As we probably already know, cost accounting is as much art as science.

Well, as UcM pointed out, he isn't exactly clear, but it appears that is the number he is claiming the NCAA (not its members) loses on the sport, which would primarily be the tournament of course. As you and UcM and I all say, there is various ways to do accounting, although I actually do doubt there is much money there for the NCAA. What WBB loses at individual schools (combined) would probably be astronomical. Just take the scholly's, travel costs, coaching salaries (even modest ones) and overhead at a school that is not successful in WBB and draws 1000 or less to its games in its mid-major or worse conference . . . exactly how could that possibly be profitable??

 

[hussybulldog]

I doubt even uconn makes any money off wbb, with astronomical staff salary(geno claims most of it) and training/ travel cost /scholarship . It ain't cheap to keep it going.