Imn

 
       
   
  

WWI 

a 
[44:
. v> ?4 

  

  
 

 

Zion, a Shoe, and “Madness”
February 20th. Cameron Indoor Stadium. Home to the Duke University basketball
team and the site of the showdown between Duke and the University of North
Carolina, arguably the most heated rivalry in college sports. Any given year, it is
a marquee matchup. But this year is different. Because an 18-year-old phenom,
who is already known by his first name alone, will be suiting up for the Blue
Devils.
Zion Williamson, a kid from the Piedmont of North Carolina and the upcoming
first pick in the NBA draft, has turned this game into a must-see event. 4.3
million people will tune in, making it the most-viewed weeknight college
basketball game in ESPN history.i On game day, tickets run at $4,000 each, easily
beating the get-in price for the Super Bowl that occurred just weeks before. Spike
Lee is in attendance. President Barack Obama sits courtside.
Thirty-four seconds into the game, and the attraction is gone. Williamson plants
his left foot to separate from a defender, rips open his shoe, and tumbles onto the
floor clutching his knee. Disappointment and anger sweep through Cameron and
across the internet. The sneakers are deemed a public health hazard. Its maker,
Nike, finishes the next day’s trading down 1.1 percent – the rough equivalent of a
$1.1 billion loss.ii In less than a minute, a teenager moves an industry.
Williamson has since gone on to headline this past month’s NCAA Basketball
Championship, commonly known as “March Madness,” which has become an
American institution. Annually, it captivates millions across the country as teams
compete over three action-packed weekends full of unforgettable moments. To
no surprise, it is one of the most viewed sporting events in the world, with more
than 100 million viewers glued to their screens this year.iii With those viewers is
the opportunity to make money – lots and lots of money. The NCAA
Tournament earns more than $1 billion annually in media revenue, which is
nearly as much as the entire NFL Playoffs, Super Bowl included.iv
Advertisers rightfully fall over themselves to get a piece of the action. The
NCAA’s published corporate “champions” and “partners” range from Coca-Cola
to Google and Geico, with 97 total corporate sponsors committed to this year’s
edition of March Madness. In turn, these companies gain exclusive rights to the
NCAA brand in advertising that exists everywhere throughout the month-long
tournament. v Those rights pay dividends, as each commercial or logo embedded
1

 in the programming reaches millions, and justifies the $1 million price tag on a
30-second commercial spot.vi Everything that can be branded has been. That
iconic moment where athletes climb a ladder as they cut down the nets to
celebrate a berth in the Final Four or the championship? Even the ladder is
sponsored.

Williamson’s shoe is a symbol of what college sports has become, and what
March Madness embodies. Big-time college sports is a business. Everything the
student-athletes do affects the bottom lines for institutions and corporations
alike. Everything they wear brings profit to companies that have paid to turn
student-athletes into human billboards. For the brief time they are on college
campuses, they are a valuable resource for the adults around them.
The ever-growing commercialism of college sports has made a lot of money for a
lot of people. Yet, as the athletes provide the product that has fueled this
industry, they see a fraction of the revenue they generate, while continuing to
face severe penalties for failing to abide by a labyrinth of rules that restrict any
meaningful participation in that industry. Meanwhile, tax-exempt non-profit
institutions of higher education condone and endorse broadcasting and apparel
contracts that surpass $250 million, coaches’ salaries that beat their professional
equivalents, and lavish spending on facilities that amount to amusement parks
aimed at seducing the nation’s top teenagers in their sport.
This report seeks to shine a light on the size, scope, and nature of the college
sports industrial complex as well as examine the ways participating institutions
move money around the student-athletes who provide the labor and their bodies
for other people’s profits.
2

 The College Sports Industrial Complex
Money swirls all around college sports. Whether from corporate sponsorships,
ticket sales, television contracts, apparel deals, merchandise sales, and increasing
student fees, the revenue streams for college athletics programs are varied and
robust. Last year, the Department of Education reported $14 billion in total
revenue collected by college sports programs, up from $4 billion in 2003.vii That
haul beats every professional sports league in the world, except for the NFL.viii
Add the revenue that broadcasters, corporate sponsors, and apparel companies
earn, and it is clear that college sports is awash with money. Meanwhile, a
fraction of that money goes to the student-athletes. So how did we get here? And
where does all the money go?

How Did We Get Here?
College sports has been a fixture of American culture for more than a century, for
good reason. Saturday game days across college campuses are special. The
cadence of marching bands in autumn afternoons and the congregations of colorcoordinated fans – a mix of students, alumni, and lifelong fans – is hard not to
enjoy. So much of college sports has become a way to connect with each other,
especially in sharing pride for a college we attended or more often the state it
represents. That’s a good thing.
While our collective support for college sports has remained a constant, the
nature and size of the industry have dramatically changed in recent decades.
That change is thanks to the relationship between the college sports we love so
much and the opportunity for people to make money off that devotion.
Commercialism has always been embedded in college athletics, and the tension
3

 between the business-side and the amateurism of the industry is largely why the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) formed in the early 1900s,
mainly to preserve “amateurism” and prevent athletes from receiving
compensation.ix That tension has been a consistent feature of college sports ever
since, and has grown with the revenues that college sports programs take in
annually, which have rapidly increased in the past 15 years.

College sports has become a money-making – and spending – machine. Total
revenues have more than tripled since 2003. That growth has been fueled by a
select group of sports and programs which have collectively cashed in on a
seemingly insatiable demand, driven by broadcasting deals that bring college
sports to nearly every screen.
College football, and to a lesser extent basketball, dominates the industry. The
average FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) school, which is any Division I school

4

 with a football team, makes more revenue from football, $31.9 million each year,
than it does on the next 35 sports combined, $31.7 million.x
Within football and basketball, an exclusive group of colleges bring in most of
the money. The Power Five conferences (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12)
include 65 of the most successful schools in college sports, both athletically and
financially. Those programs brought in more than $7.6 billion in revenue last
year. Out of the 2,078 institutions that have athletic programs, those 65 schools
generated 54 percent of all college sports revenue. Essentially, 3 percent of all
college programs bring in more than half of all the money, and they do that
primarily by plowing money into their massive football programs.xi

Even within those Power Five conferences, a few reign supreme in their ability to
rake in money. Last year, 36 programs reported more than $100 million in
revenues, with 11 reporting more than $150 million and two clearing $200
million (The University of Texas at Austin and The Ohio State University).xii Not
surprisingly, the list of largest athletic budgets annually maps almost directly
onto that year’s final college football rankings. Big money programs not only
have a stranglehold on the industry’s profitability, but the accolades and
attention that industry brings. That success, in turn, fuels the desire for aspiring
5

 programs to go into debt for the small chance to earn status within this
increasingly exclusive group. In fact, as few as 12 athletic departments make a
profit, with many more requiring their institutions or the students themselves to
subsidize their losses.
As revenues have poured into college programs, athletic departments have spent
them within their programs, often on staff salaries and facilities. The constant
and urgent need to compete, either between big-time programs in the Power Five
conferences or smaller programs hoping to make the jump onto the national
stage, fuels an “arms race” that inflates staff salaries and rationalizes lavish
facilities, among other spending meant to get the most out of their studentathletes rather than supporting their futures. The result is an industry with more
money than it knows what to do with, and the need to grow revenues at all costs,
regardless of what is in the best interests of the student-athletes who make
college sports worth watching.

How Institutions Spend Around Student-Athletes
How much of all that money eventually gets to the student-athletes versus the
adults and institutions around them?

6

 Let’s start with student aid. Scholarships provide the entirety of direct
compensation student-athletes currently receive for their effort. According to the
NCAA, Divisions I and II schools, which are the only programs that award
scholarships, provide approximately $2.9 billion athletics scholarships annually
to more than 150,000 student-athletes.xiii Along with the direct benefit of a college
scholarship, student-athletes often receive educational grants that help them pay
for the non-tuition costs of college, on top of tutoring and other academic
support services. In total, these benefits are substantial and have the potential to
dramatically improve a student-athlete’s life well beyond their time competing.
However, student aid alone does not provide a clear picture of the considerable
imbalance between the revenue student-athletes generate and how that money
swirls around them.
Consider the budgets of the top revenue-producing programs in the country.
Among the 65 Power Five conference programs, only 12 percent of all revenue
goes toward student-athlete scholarships, across all sports. By comparison, 16
percent goes toward coaches’ salaries.xiv Effectively, that means the 4,400 head
and assistant coaches collectively receive more of the revenue than the nearly
45,000 student-athletes who generate that revenue. In other words, it would take
a dozen student-athletes pooling together all of their scholarship money to equal
the average salary of just one of their coaches.

Now consider the budgets of the top programs within those Power Five
conferences. According to a USA Today analysis of the schools with the 10
largest athletic department budgets, those programs spent 3.5 times as much on
coaches’ salaries than on scholarships.xv Big programs often invest many times
more on facilities, building athletic palaces and amusement park amenities that
clear $50 million in construction costs. If a budget is a reflection of an
7

 institution’s values, these programs simply believe that coaches and even edifices
are far more valuable than the student-athletes who provide all the labor.

Professionally Paid Coaches
For those in positions of power over student-athletes, the college sports industry
has become increasingly lucrative. The median salary for an athletic director at a
Division I institution is over $500,000 a year. More than 100 coaches at Division I
schools earn over $1 million per year, with the top 25 football coaches earning an
average of $5.2 million annually and the top 25 basketball coaches earning $3.2
million annually.xvi In fact, the highest paid public employees in 41 out of 50
states are football or basketball coaches.
At the extremes, the adults that hold the most power over student-athletes earn
well beyond the collective value of their players’ scholarships. In 2017, Nick
Saban, the head football coach at the University of Alabama, made $11 million,
more than nearly every coach in American sports. Similarly, John Calipari, the
head basketball coach at the University of Kentucky, made more than $9
million.xvii These salaries only represent one form of compensation for coaches.
On top of extravagant salaries, coaches receive bonuses, endorsements, country
club memberships, the occasional private plane, and in some cases a negotiated
percentage of ticket receipts.xviii

To an extent, these salaries make sense. College coaches have significant
influence over the success of a program. They drive which recruits sign with
their schools and the team’s performance on the field. The best coaches can build
entire programs and elevate those that are already elite.
However, the shocking size of coaches’ salaries has more to do with the growth
of the industry than it does with winning. Since 1984, the average compensation
8

 for head football coaches at public universities has grown 750 percent (adjusted
for inflation).xix That growth has nothing to do with wins. Consider the final
salary of Paul Bear Bryant, the legendary head coach of the University of
Alabama from 1958-82, who equaled current coach Saban’s record of 6 national
championships. In 1982, Bryant made $450,000 ($1.1 million, adjusted for
inflation). For equal achievement, his successor earns exactly ten times as much.xx
Meanwhile, the players who made that winning possible have seen little change
in the benefits they receive.

Lavish Facilities
When programs aren’t spending on their coaches, they often invest in facilities
that beat even the most impressive professional counterparts. For instance,
Clemson recently built an exclusive $55 million complex for its football team that
amounts to a player’s theme park, with a miniature golf course, sand volleyball
courts, laser tag, bowling lanes, and a movie theater – and it’s not alone. Down
the road, the University of South Carolina includes TV and video game areas, a
15-seat movie theater with reclining seats and surround sound, a video arcade
room, and a sound studio for athletes to record music. Notably, during the
University of Tennessee’s dedication for their own extravagant facilities, its
athletic director proudly announced to wealthy donors that professional football
scouts “have told me this is the best facility, college or professional, that they’ve
ever seen.”xxi

Between 2004 and 2014, Power Five conferences nearly doubled facilities
spending, even after adjusting for inflation. What has amounted to shrinebuilding aimed at seducing teenagers will continue to escalate, with several
programs slated for projects that exceed $200 million over the next decade. xxii
9

 The escalating “arms race” of personnel, facilities, and other amenities has
pushed most athletic departments into spending far more than they should or
can. An athletic program designed to sell tickets and media rights for public
entertainment must invest more than one designed simply to allow their
students to compete with other teams for the love of the game. An athletic
program fielding a football team must invest more than one that only funds a
basketball team. And a program striving to enter one of the Power Five
conferences is driven to hire huge coaching staffs with multi-million-dollar
salaries and build lavish, state-of-the-art athletic competition, training and
support facilities to recruit and retain elite players, and fly athletes around the
country to compete in conference tournaments.
From the top down, programs are incentivized to pour more and more money
into programs regardless of how they increasingly conflict with the missions of
their affiliated universities, or whether that money truly helps provide a real
future for the student-athletes that earn it.
The ability to pour revenue into extraordinary salaries or facilities comes at the
expense of student-athletes. Programs will spend as much as they can to
compete. When they do not have to share revenue in a fair way with the athletes,
it frees them up to dump that money into everything else.

College Sports: A Corporate Cash Cow
The money all around college sports has particularly profited the corporate
interests that find every way imaginable to market student-athletes. Those same
corporations have directly fueled the massive growth of the industry, while
making sure their margins expand off the backs of “amateurs.”
Again, Zion Williamson offers a perfect example, in this case how corporations
exploit the unique and immoral amateurism of college sports. The phenomenon
of this 18-year-old is arguably as much about his ability as the way corporations
have sought to profit off him. Before Williamson ever played a college game, he
was a sensation. A whole cottage industry of media sprung up, tracking every
high school dunk and highlight. He headlined All-American games sponsored
by McDonald’s and Jordan Brand. ESPN televised his decision to sign with
Duke. Drake even sported his high school jersey.
After joining Duke, already one of the most valuable programs in college sports,
corporations jumped even further onto the Zion Williamson cash train. Beyond
10

 his notorious effect on Nike’s stock price, ESPN covered his sensation on a
nightly basis. Even while he was out following his injury against North Carolina,
ESPN decided to keep a camera on him throughout Duke games, largely
showing him sitting on the bench clapping for his teammates. Meanwhile, CBS
and Turner, who have broadcasting rights to the NCAA tournament, have
marketed their product by heavily featuring Williamson.
While Williamson is by definition unique, he exemplifies the many ways
companies, particularly broadcasting and apparel companies, profit off studentathletes. He also represents the nature of risk and benefit associated with college
sports. Had Williamson suffered a severe injury when his shoe malfunctioned,
the companies all around him would have kept the millions they already made,
while his career could have been gone without earning a single paycheck.
Regardless of benefit to the student-athletes, broadcast companies have squeezed
profits out of them. Following a landmark 1984 Supreme Court decision that
gave colleges the ability to sell broadcasting rights to the highest bidder,
networks doubled down on college sports, football in particular. The biggest
companies often negotiate directly with the Power Five conferences to secure
substantial broadcast deals. In 2016, the Big Ten conference signed a six-year
broadcast rights deal with Fox, ESPN, and CBS worth $2.64 billion.xxiii That
contract mirrored similar deals that the other Power Five conferences have made
with broadcasters, mainly ESPN, to launch their own channels. In some cases,
even individual programs have started exclusive channels. In 2011, the
University of Texas signed a deal with ESPN worth $300 million over 20 years
that created the Longhorn Network, which delivers 24-hour content of all things
Texas sports.xxiv
Broadcasting companies know they will make their money back and then some.
For instance, while CBS and Turner paid the NCAA more than $1 billion for the
rights to March Madness, advertising revenues netted them nearly $250 million
in profit. Every broadcast deal, whether with the NCAA, conferences or
individual programs, is expected to net broadcasters like ESPN substantial
profits over the life of the contracts. With most of these contracts extending for 20
or even 30 years, the constant flow of broadcasting money will only grow
moving forward, ensuring more money for everyone except the athletes.
With so many cameras pointed at student-athletes, apparel companies have
found profits in simply outfitting them. For instance, when 100 million people
tune into March Madness, every Nike swoosh or Adidas trefoil emblazoned on
11

 the jersey means direct and efficient advertising. It is no wonder why either
Nike, Adidas, or Under Armour have exclusive rights to outfit 97 percent of all
football and basketball programs.xxv In the business, schools have become
defined by which apparel company suits them. Michigan is a Nike school,
having signed a $173.8 million contract in 2016. The University of California at
Los Angeles? It is a very happy Under Armour school, having signed a recordsetting deal worth $280 million. Right behind them, The Ohio State University
signed a 15-year, $252 million deal with Nike that included a $20 million cash
signing bonus.xxvi
Perhaps the most shocking apparel contract so far, though, was the University of
Louisville’s deal with Adidas. After negotiating a new deal worth $160 million in
2017, news came out that the previous contract with the apparel company paid
out 98 percent of all cash involved to one person: the men’s basketball coach,
Rick Pitino. The athletic director had lied, promising the money would go to
student-athletes. By October of that year, both Pitino and the athletic director
would lose their jobs. They had been implicated in a scheme to illegally pay high
school recruits so they would choose to play for Louisville. The men who helped
them do it? Adidas executives.xxvii
Whether it is giant broadcast companies or multi-national apparel corporations,
the private sector has efficiently found ways to milk profits out of studentathletes. From what they wear, to where you can watch them and what
advertisements come across your screen, student-athletes not only serve the
financial interests of their colleges, but by virtue of massive contracts, they also
serve the corporations that see them entirely as a product. As always in the
current system, the student-athletes end up lining other people’s pockets.

Conclusion
The NCAA and collegiate sports more broadly no longer primarily benefit the
players. The current system does more to advance the financial interests of
broadcasters, apparel companies, and athletic departments than it does for the
student-athletes who provide the product from which everyone else profits. The
NCAA must start putting the players first—that starts with finding a way to
fairly compensate them for their labor.
Without change, the exploitation inherent in our current system will only get
worse. The industry will continue to grow. Big-time athletic programs will
12

 continue to find ways to squeeze more money out of their product. They will
continue spending that money around the players instead of meaningfully on
them. The arms race will continue. The extravagant coaching contracts and
facilities aimed at enticing teenagers will continue. The world’s largest
companies will continue to profit of student-athletes’ names and bodies.
College sports is an American tradition because of the student-athletes. We
collectively tune in to see them compete. We fill out brackets and fill up stadiums
because the effort and devotion student athletes put into their sport is special.
But, these student athletes deserve more than our fanhood. They deserve to
receive fair compensation for their work. They deserve a system that guarantees
a meaningful education as well as financial security. They deserve a system that
shows real concern for their health and well-being, both during and well after
their time on the field. Simply, they deserve a system that respects their
contribution and dedication. That means a new system. That means different
rules. That means change. It won’t come easy and the solutions won’t be simple.
But, if the NCAA can create a complex system that largely drives money into
adults’ pockets, we can create a system that does better – for the student-athletes
today and all those to come after. It’s about time.

Preview of Future Reports
This is the first in a series of reports that will consider a range of problems with
college athletics. Subsequent reports will examine the nature of amateurism, how
programs fail to provide a full education to their student-athletes, the long-term
health consequences that student-athletes face and the lack of comprehensive
health care afforded to them, and a look forward at how we can address the
litany of issues within this industry.
i

Lawrence, Andrew. The Atlantic. (Mar 18, 2019). Why Zion Williamson Is Poised to Change the Course of NCAA History.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/03/how-zion-williamson-could-change-ncaa/585163/
ii Id.
iii NCAA Press Release. (Apr 13, 2018). 2018 NCAA tournament viewership, attendance numbers.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-04-13/2018-ncaa-tournament-and-final-four-viewership-attendance
iv USA Today. (Mar 17, 2013). March Madness ad haul spirals higher than any sport.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/17/march-madness-ad-revenue-super-bowl-advertisers/1991379/
v NCAA Press Release. (Mar 17, 2019). Corporate Champions and Partners. https://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-0225/corporate-champions-and-partners
vi Reuters. (Mar 13, 2017). Advertisers bet big on March Madness as live sports ratings wane.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ncaa-basketball-advertising/advertisers-bet-big-on-march-madness-as-live-sports-ratingswane-idUSKBN16K2G9
vii U.S. Department of Education. Equity in Athletics Data Analysis.

13

 MarketWatch. (Jul 2, 2016). NFL took in $13 billion in revenue last season – see how it stacks up against other pro sports
leagues. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nfl-made-13-billion-last-season-see-how-it-stacks-up-against-other-leagues2016-07-01
ix Lopiano, Donna; Gurney, Gerald & Zimbalist, Andrew. (Feb 7, 2017). Unwinding Madness: What Went Wrong with College
Sports and How to Fix It. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/book/unwinding-madness/
x Business Insider. (Oct 5, 2017). The average college football team makes more money than the next 35 college sports
combined. https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-football-revenue-2017-10
xi U.S. Department of Education. Equity in Athletics Data Analysis.
xii Id.
xiii NCAA. Scholarship. http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/scholarships
xiv U.S. Department of Education. Equity in Athletics Data Analysis.
xv Business Insider. (Sept 24, 2014). Chart Shows How Little of College Sports Revenues Goes to The Athletes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-athlete-scholarships-2014-9
xvi ESPN. (Aug 16, 2017). The perks of being a college football coach: Cars, planes, and…good behavior bonuses?.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20176937/college-football-coaches-perks-sweeten-deals-nick-saban-daboswinney-jim-harbaugh-urban-meyer-jimbo-fisher-mike-leach
xvii USA Today. 2017-18 Salaries. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/
xviii Branch, Taylor. The Atlantic. (October 2011). The Shame of College Sports.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/
xix Id.
xx SBNation. (Oct 4, 2018). A history of skyrocketing college football coach salaries, from Walter Camp to Nick Saban.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/6/4/17390394/college-football-coach-salaries-history-highest
xxi Chicago Tribune. (Dec 23, 2015). College spend fortunes on lavish athletic facilities.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-athletic-facilities-expenses-20151222-story.html
xxii Id.
xxiii IndyStar. (June 20, 2016). Report: Big Ten getting $2.64 billion in new TV deal.
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2016/06/20/report-espn-pay-more-than-1-billion-big-ten-footballgames/86133418/
xxiv SBNation. (Jan 19, 2011). The Longhorn Network and ESPN Sign Texas-Sized Deal. https://www.sbnation.com/ncaafootball/2011/1/19/1944110/texas-longhorn-network-espn-sign-deal
xxv Football Scoop. (May 21, 2018). Nike, Adidas or Under Armour? Who wears what in FBS – 2018 edition.
http://footballscoop.com/news/nike-adidas-armour-wears-fbs-2018-edition/
xxvi ESPN. (Sept 27, 2017). Breaking down college shoe and apparel deals. http://www.espn.com/mens-collegebasketball/story/_/id/20837463/a-look-colleges-apparel-shoe-deals
xxvii Courier-Journal. (Oct 5, 2017). Rick Pitino raked in 98% of the cash from University of Louisville’s current Adidas deal.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2017/10/05/university-louisville-college-basketball-adidastom-jurich-rick-pitinio-money/730771001/
viii

14