Why no revenue sharing $$$ for the Women's Champion?

[sun]

A Washington Post columnist cried foul over there not being any revenue sharing money paid to the Women's national champion despite gains in advertising.
She accused the NCAA of "cooking the books."
Column from March, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/03/19/ncaa-womens-basketball-unequal/

 

[Centerstream]

A Washington Post columnist cried foul over there not being any revenue sharing money paid to the Women's national champion despite gains in advertising.
She accused the NCAA of "cooking the books."
Column from March, 2021

Has there been any official responses to this, it's almost been a year?

 

[sun]

Has there been any official responses to this, it's almost been a year?

In August, 2021, the NCAA had an External Gender Equity Review done by a law firm that made some findings & recommendations.
Here's a brief article about the review which also contains a link to it.

NCAA undervalues women's basketball by millions, report says

NCAA urged to funnel more money into women's basketball because it's a growing sport offering a bucket of revenue.

www.cbsnews.com

There may be more info., perhaps others can help search for it.

 

[Centerstream]

In August, 2021, the NCAA had an External Gender Equity Review done by a law firm that made some findings & recommendations.
Here's a brief article about the review which also contains a link to it.

NCAA undervalues women's basketball by millions, report says

NCAA urged to funnel more money into women's basketball because it's a growing sport offering a bucket of revenue.

www.cbsnews.com

There may be more info., perhaps others can help search for it.

I only asked my question because I was wondering why you started this thread based on an article that was the opinion of a columnist written almost a year ago.

 

[Alydar]

Right now there is no sharing of tournament revenue because there is no net revenue. You can't get blood from a stone.

 

[sun]

I only asked my question because I was wondering why you started this thread based on an article that was the opinion of a columnist written almost a year ago.

What exactly has changed since it was written?
AFAIK, the topic is still as valid as the day that was written.
The review article seems to substantiate that.

 

[jchusky]

you want revenue for a tournament that loses 2.5 million dollars? Meanwhile the men make 60 million +

 

[TC22]

you want revenue for a tournament that loses 2.5 million dollars? Meanwhile the men make 60 million +

They lose 2.5 million because the tournament gives zero credit for any investment made in the tourney. If you are going to lump all “basketball revenue” under one category (WBB+MBB) to sell to investors, but then split the profit with only MBB then you aren’t sharing the revenue equally. EVERY men’s team who plays in the tournament gets a payout. Zero women’s team gets any share of the profit - not even the champion.

 

[Jmsdawg]

Right now there is no sharing of tournament revenue because there is no net revenue. You can't get blood from a stone.

In the South we say “blood from a turnip “ but it means the same thing.

 

[CL82]

Right now there is no sharing of tournament revenue because there is no net revenue. You can't get blood from a stone.

Said differently, there’s 100% revenue sharing.

Perhaps the OP would prefer to have the net loss allocated among each of the participating teams? Maybe an entry fee?

 

[sun]

What seems to have happened is that the NCAA signed a 14 year deal with ESPN that resulted in only $41 million being paid to televise all of the womens NCAAT games.
That appears to be a form of quid pro quo in order to receive the much higher TV payout for the mens games.

That implies that the NCAA "intentionally" undersold the value of the womens NCAAT games, and for too long of a period of time without adequate increases being built into the contract to reflect the need to generate payout money for the womens conferences.

While the amount of money being generated for the men is going higher & higher, the amount for the women hasn't.

Since both sports are under the single umbrella of the NCAA (just like with both MLB leagues & both NFL conferences), the NCAA should come up with a plan to share some of its huge revenues.
It's the NCAA's fault that they undersold the value and not the fault of the women schools and conferences that compete and are losing money.

The NCAA acts as if the women should consider themselves lucky just to be able to play.
When the reality is that they're capable of earning revenue if the NCAA didn't blow the TV deal by giving away the farm.

March Madness Daily: Men’s vs. Women’s NCAA Tournament Money

Differences between the men's and women's NCAA tournaments have come under scrutiny. There are even bigger disparities in the finances.

www.sportico.com

NCAA reveals budget, revenue gulfs between men’s and women’s basketball tournaments

In a financial summary obtained by Yahoo Sports, the NCAA attempted to justify the disparity between the two tournament budgets.

www.yahoo.com

 

[sun]

IIRC, there was a time when the conference of the women champs did receive some money.
That may have been when the womens NCAAT was still on national TV.
It wasn't a whole lot, maybe $1 million.
The loser of the NC game may have gotten some money too, but those were the only teams to earn money which went to their conferences to be distributed.

Maybe someone else remembers more about it, but that's what I recall reading long ago.
That's why I was surprised when I first learned that the women champs no longer earned any money for winning the NC.
The schools shouldn't need to accept that, but maybe after 2025 the NCAA will come up with a plan.

 

[TC22]

Said differently, there’s 100% revenue sharing.

Perhaps the OP would prefer to have the net loss allocated among each of the participating teams? Maybe an entry fee?

No, there is not. When some small market team wins their tournament so gets in the men's tournament and gets knocked out in a play-in game they get a check for over $250,000. The Champion of the women's tournament gets nothing. There is no sharing. You're telling me there were more eyes on that game than the women's championship game? I call BS. They don't have to pay equally, but they need to take a portion on the 630 million they make on the tournament and pay the women unit shares also. Take $10 million and divide it up into unit shares like they do the men. At least it's something. As it is the women don't get 1 penny, but they are selling ads that run through the women's tournament.

 

[CL82]

No, there is not. When some small market team wins their tournament so gets in the men's tournament and gets knocked out in a play-in game they get a check for over $250,000. The Champion of the women's tournament gets nothing. There is no sharing. You're telling me there were more eyes on that game than the women's championship game? I call BS. They don't have to pay equally, but they need to take a portion on the 630 million they make on the tournament and pay the women unit shares also. Take $10 million and divide it up into unit shares like they do the men. At least it's something. As it is the women don't get 1 penny, but they are selling ads that run through the women's tournament.

There is no profit sharing from the women’s tournament because there is no profit from the women’s tournament.

If you are suggesting that a portion the profit from the men’s tournament should be used to create payouts for the women’s tournament participants that would be revenue reallocation rather than revenue sharing. Keep in mind that the revenue from the NCAA tournament is used to support Olympic sports and Division II and Division III sports for both genders.

Your argument that the women are being treated inequitably because they don’t get to share in the revenue from their tournament, however, has no merit, because there is no revenue from their tournament. You seem to be struggling with that concept.

 

[Alydar]

What seems to have happened is that the NCAA signed a 14 year deal with ESPN that resulted in only $41 million being paid to televise all of the womens NCAAT games.
That appears to be a form of quid pro quo in order to receive the much higher TV payout for the mens games.

That implies that the NCAA "intentionally" undersold the value of the womens NCAAT games, and for too long of a period of time without adequate increases being built into the contract to reflect the need to generate payout money for the womens conferences.

While the amount of money being generated for the men is going higher & higher, the amount for the women hasn't.

Since both sports are under the single umbrella of the NCAA (just like with both MLB leagues & both NFL conferences), the NCAA should come up with a plan to share some of its huge revenues.
It's the NCAA's fault that they undersold the value and not the fault of the women schools and conferences that compete and are losing money.

The NCAA acts as if the women should consider themselves lucky just to be able to play.
When the reality is that they're capable of earning revenue if the NCAA didn't blow the TV deal by giving away the farm.

March Madness Daily: Men’s vs. Women’s NCAA Tournament Money

Differences between the men's and women's NCAA tournaments have come under scrutiny. There are even bigger disparities in the finances.

www.sportico.com

NCAA reveals budget, revenue gulfs between men’s and women’s basketball tournaments

In a financial summary obtained by Yahoo Sports, the NCAA attempted to justify the disparity between the two tournament budgets.

www.yahoo.com

You can chop up a pie any way you want but the pie doesn't get any bigger. If revenue for wcbb is to increase they have to put a more attractive product on TV.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The NCAA doesn't promote the women's tournament like the men's and then they have regionals in out of the way places with virtually no media presence. Apologies in advance to Sioux Falls, etc., but if regionals were held in NYC, Boston, Atlanta, LA and Miami, they'd be easier to get to and fans could make a vacation out of it. I remember one year my vacation budget went for a trip to Sioux Falls. Nice place, but not my vacation preference.

 

[TC22]

There is no profit sharing from the women’s tournament because there is no profit from the women’s tournament.

If you are suggesting that a portion the profit from the men’s tournament should be used to create payouts for the women’s tournament participants that would be revenue reallocation rather than revenue sharing. Keep in mind that the revenue from the NCAA tournament is used to support Olympic sports and Division II and Division III sports for both genders.

Your argument that the women are being treated inequitably because they don’t get to share in the revenue from their tournament, however, has no merit, because there is no revenue from their tournament. You seem to be struggling with that concept.

I’m not struggling with the concept. There’s no profit for the women’s tournament because they put about as much effort in selling the women’s tournament as they did that assembling that weight room from last year. I’m not going to argue. It’s never ending.

 

[CL82]

I’m not struggling with the concept. There’s no profit for the women’s tournament because they put about as much effort in selling the women’s tournament as they did that assembling that weight room from last year. I’m not going to argue. It’s never ending.

I’m not sure when marketing is the answer, but I believe it would help. The larger problem is it is competing with the men’s tournament which is just terrific. It will be tough for it to draw from more than diehard fans.

In any event we can find agreement in that where there is no profit, there can be no profit sharing. Which was pretty much the point made a half a dozen or so posts earlier.

 

[triaddukefan]

The NCAA doesn't promote the women's tournament like the men's and then they have regionals in out of the way places with virtually no media presence. Apologies in advance to Sioux Falls, etc., but if regionals were held in NYC, Boston, Atlanta, LA and Miami, they'd be easier to get to and fans could make a vacation out of it. I remember one year my vacation budget went for a trip to Sioux Falls. Nice place, but not my vacation preference.

Those cities are major ... but unless you are going to have the games at a secondary arena... no chance the NBA/NHL franchises in those towns are gonna give up there arenas for a weekend for women's college basketball. Don't think the average WCBB fan is willing to spend the money to stay/eat/and get around in cities like Boston, NYC, LA.. etc. A regional in those cities would get barely any coverage in the local press.

 

[HuskyMJ]

The tickets are very cheap, so they are not even pricing like they want a profit but then you want profit sharing of the non existent profit?

 

[azfan]

Atendance and viewership.

Like fellow BYers I'm a big fan of the women's game ( I don't follow the men) although not as avid as some of you. We all recognize that we are in the minority in basketball viewership. Viewership for the men's game is a significant multiple of the women's as the article below illustrates. At the tournament fans watch the men's game at a rate of 5 to 10 times that of the women's game. And in the regular season the multiple maybe as high as 50 times. There are exceptions of course. Down in Tucson the woman draw close to 70% of the men. Here in Tempe the Sun Devils are probably more typical as they draw between 8 and 10% of the men.

So as ESPN and other media companies attempt to earn a profit they make a consideration as to how they can monetize these games. Both in person attendance and viewership estimates are critical to the ability of these media companies to afford to broadcast these games.

As ESPN continues to contract and lose significant numbers of subscribers they found that their previous business model is not compatible with the changing viewership landscape.

From the article below:

"ESPN will have to figure out how to make up roughly $3 billion in annual lost pay-TV revenue that's coming in the next few years."

With this contraction in revenue it is highly unlikely verging on close to zero probability that there will be additional funds for basketball. Therefore looking ahead one has to wonder to what extent revenues can be transferred from a contracting pie from the men's game to the women's game. I'm not optimistic.

ESPN's grip on cable TV loosens as streaming strategy surges

NCAA men's, women's basketball tournament ratings show mixed results

The men's and women's Sweet 16 games had strong ratings, but the men's Elite Eight games had a significant drop in viewership.

amp.usatoday.com

I think there are a number of challenges that the women's game needs to confront head on in an effort to expand viewership. That said simply bemoaning the difference in viewership and resulting revenues and crying for revenue sharing don't seem to be successful strategies to support and foster future increases in viewing women's basketball.

Tastes and preference are intriguing and mysterious thing and history clearly indicates coercion cannot change preference. While we as a group really enjoy and admire the women's game we have to recognize that most fans don't.

 

[sun]

CBS saw 14% decline in viewers for NCAA men’s basketball championship game, while ratings for women’s title match on ESPN grew​

See the lower part of the article to see the viewership % increases.

CBS saw 14% decline in viewers for NCAA men's basketball championship game, while ratings for women's title match on ESPN grew

The 2021 NCAA men's basketball championship averaged 16.9 million viewers, the lowest rating for CBS since it started broadcasting in 1982.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Stymie]

You can chop up a pie any way you want but the pie doesn't get any bigger. If revenue for wcbb is to increase they have to put a more attractive product on TV.

However, if there were no eyeballs watching it, they wouldn’t put it on the air.
I do not trust the NCAA’s accounting methods.

 

[azfan]

However, if there were no eyeballs watching it, they wouldn’t put it on the air.
I do not trust the NCAA’s accounting methods.

However, if there were no eyeballs watching it, they wouldn’t put it on the air.
I do not trust the NCAA’s accounting methods.

There are eyeballs on WBB, just not enough. Lacrosse, rugby, even table tennis are niche sports with dedicated fans. While WBB also has dedicated fans with eyeballs on broadcasts there are unfortunately many fewer that the eyeballs than on MBB, football, even baseball.

 

[Stymie]

There are eyeballs on WBB, just not enough. Lacrosse, rugby, even table tennis are niche sports with dedicated fans. While WBB also has dedicated fans with eyeballs on broadcasts there are unfortunately many fewer that the eyeballs than on MBB, football, even baseball.

Don’t find too much Lacrosse, rugby or table tennis on the tube.
Am able, however, to ‘stumble’ on to a lot of NCAA WBB.
Just feel that “something is rotten In Denmark”.
Don’t trust the NCAA at all.
But that’s just me.