Social Science Research: Topic Selection/Annotated Bibliography Assignment

25 Sport and financing Wladimir Andreff

Sport and money enjoy a long-lasting and necessary mutual relationship. Where sport is competitive, it offers a sports spectacle that requires finance for its organisation, but can bring in substantial income. Sports participation itself has become an act of individual consumption, bringing in its training expenses from households for sports goods and ser- vices. Sport development and sporting events are of concern for both central and local (regional) governments, which allocate a part of their budget to sports financing (Andreff and Nys, 2002). This chapter covers the macroeconomic finance of the overall sports economy at a national and regional level in Europe. Financing team sports and the finance of a specific athlete are dealt with elsewhere in this book.1 The focus here is on the distri- bution between public and private sports finance. Some examples show that sport – even the so-called amateur sport – is increasingly subject to a purely financial rationale which threatens the survival of a traditional sporting ethic. On the other hand, North American sports finance concentrates on professional sports. Nevertheless, increasing amounts of money do flow into American college sports. Due to their capacity to attract more finance, some college sports are now on the brink of professionalisation.

Financing the Overall Sports Economy in Europe Money flows into the sports economy from four major, though uneven, sources in European countries. Sports clubs’ organisations and federations supply sporting activ- ities. Together with the sports media, they all basically offer sports services while retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers supply sports goods. In return, they earn revenues from the following sources of finance: households, the central government, local governments and enterprises (media, sponsors, patrons and financiers). A European survey of sports financing (Andreff et al., 1994) highlighted, for the year 1990, a basically comparable structure of sports finance in all sampled countries (Table 25.1). Overall sports finance ranged from 0.56 per cent (Denmark) to 3.47 per cent (Switzerland) of GDP. In all countries, private funds overrode public financing of sport, including in the two former socialist economies, Hungary and the Czech Republic, whereas – except in Portugal – households were the main contributors to sports finance, and local governments provided more money to sport than the central government (except in Hungary). Thus, a two-pillar financing model emerges, based on households and local authorities. Beyond these com- monalties, some countries have a higher than average share of the central government’s sports financing – Hungary, France, Portugal and Italy – while the central government finance is negligible compared to local government finance in Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries and the UK. The Scandinavian countries, Germany and France enjoy the highest share of local government financing in overall sports finance. Enterprises are a relatively small source, except in Portugal and Sweden. Thus, on average, the so-called ‘privatisation’ of sports finance is due more to household consumption than to the financial commitment of enterprises, with Switzerland as an extreme case.

271

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 6 . E d w a r d E l g a r P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY AN: 182123 ; Wladimir Andreff, Stefan Szymanski.; Handbook on the Economics of Sport Account: liberty.main.ehost

This means that a European model of sports finance (Andreff, 1996) is deeply rooted in the chosen spending of households, which is the logic of a market economy where par- ticipants and spectators are considered to be consumers of sports goods and services. Nevertheless, in this model, public finance is not negligible, in particular with regard to local authority funding. This is one of the reasons why the financing of sport by private business remains limited in Europe compared to North America.

Unfortunately, no update of the Council of Europe’s survey is available so far. However, in 2000, France and the UK seem to be representative of a more general European trend. The share of households still increases in sports finance while the share of public (both central and local) financing decreases. The public–private finance distribution is moving towards a higher inflow of private money in sport.

Private Sports Finance Households finance the sports goods industry through their purchases of sportswear, sports footwear, and more specific sports goods. Some also buy the products of the sport- ing press, which draws its revenues from them. On the other hand, households finance a wide range of services supplied by various organisations involved in sporting activities: subscriptions and fees as sports participants, admissions to sporting events as sports fans, and bets in sport-related gambling as punters. The aforementioned European survey showed that household expenditure was more concentrated on financing sports services than sports goods, in most developed European countries (except Denmark and Sweden), in 1990 (Table 25.2). On the other hand, households spent more money on buying sports goods than on the acquisition of sports services in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Portugal. In some countries, such as the UK, Italy and Sweden, betting and gambling on

272 Handbook on the economics of sport

Table 25.1 The structure of sports finance in Europe, 1990 (2000) (%)

Country Households Enterprises Central Local Private Public Overall government government sector sector finance/

GDP

1990 Czech Republic 74.8 1.8 6.0 17.4 76.6 23.4 n.a. Denmark 55.6 5.6 6.3 32.5 61.2 38.8 0.56 Finland 66.2 4.8 4.3 24.7 71.0 29.0 1.13 France 42.4 8.5 11.5 37.6 50.9 49.1 1.10 Germany 69.0 3.8 0.6 26.6 72.8 27.2 1.28 Hungary 47.5 5.7 30.2 16.6 53.2 46.8 0.60 Italy 72.9 7.9 8.2 11.0 80.8 19.2 1.04 Portugal 36.5 42.0 9.9 11.6 78.5 21.5 1.77 Sweden 60.2 17.1 2.2 20.4 77.4 22.6 0.80 Switzerland 91.6 2.8 0.4 5.2 94.4 5.6 3.47 UK 79.1 5.0 0.8 15.1 84.1 15.9 1.49

2000 France 50.4 7.0 11.1 31.5 57.4 42.6 1.70 UK 79.5 8.4 n.a. 12.1 87.9 12.1 1.50

Sources: Andreff et al. (1994), MJS (2002) and Cambridge Econometrics (2003).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

the outcome of sporting events account for a substantial share of the private finance flowing into the sports economy. The methodological tricks backing these figures (see Andreff et al., 1994) do not allow more refined conclusions to be formulated.

With regard to the enterprise contribution to private sport finance, sponsorship has usually been the biggest source of funds, namely in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Sweden, followed by the broadcasting rights fees paid by television companies. Today, the 10 major sponsors of French sport spend an average of more than €10 million per year on sports sponsorship (Andreff and Nys, 2002). The broadcasting rights fees that accrued to all sports, in 1998, reached $451 million in France, $841 million in Germany, $500 million in Italy, $261 million in Spain and $791 million in the UK. Football received the major share of television revenues: 37.8 per cent in France, 42 per cent in Germany, 65.2 per cent in Italy, 50.8 per cent in Spain and 51.6 per cent in the UK.2

After football, the main sports benefiting from the television windfall were Formula One (9.3 per cent of all broadcasting right fees), rugby (8.1%), tennis (4.6%) and cycling (2.7%) in France; tennis (6.6%), Formula One (6.2%), boxing (4.3%) and basketball (3.5%) in Germany; Formula One (7.4%), basketball (5.1%) and cycling (2.0%) in Italy; basketball (10.9%), tennis (9.8%), Formula One (4.2%) and track and fields (1.4%) in Spain; and rugby (11.7%), cricket (7.9%), Formula One (4.5%) and tennis (2.3%) in the UK. The share of sport sponsorship, compared to broadcasting rights fees, has decreased in the past 20 years in Europe. Both are somewhat volatile sources of sports financing, since it

Sport and financing 273

Table 25.2 The share of sports goods and services in household consumption, 1990 (2000) (%)

Country Sportswear Other Subscriptions Admissions Newspapers Other Betting & & footwear sports insurance, media sports gambling

goods fees services

1990 Belgium 13.2 19.2 24.3 9.0 27.0 7.3 Czech 86.9* 12.4** 0.7

Republic Denmark 26.8 24.9 48.3** Finland 25.8 10.1 10.2 46.5 7.4 France 25.6 12.5 7.4 7.8 4.0 42.7 Germany 22.6 14.7 12.4 14.0 5.9 29.1 1.3 Hungary 56.9* 3.1 34.7 5.3 Italy 33.7 3.5 13.1 4.7 6.4 9.8 28.8 Portugal 53.7* 38.9 7.4 Spain 22.0* 16.4 61.6 Sweden 39.1 19.5 14.7 1.5 25.2 UK 20.2 21.1 5.5 14.8 4.8 4.3 29.2

2000 France 25.5 34.3 16.8 11.6 11.8 UK 21.6 6.9 23.5 5.2 20.1

Note: * All sports goods; ** All sports services.

Sources: Calculated from Andreff et al. (1994), MJS (2002) and Cambridge Econometrics (2003).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

is not the basic enterprise calling to finance sports, except for those firms involved in the production and trade of sports goods and services.

A minor private source of finance flows through sport at the workplace supported by employers’ money, which is a non-negligible share of overall private funds in Scandinavian sports. Sports financing by enterprises was a multiple of the state budget for sports in Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, in 1990, while it amounted to less than 50 per cent of the state budget in the Czech Republic and Hungary. The data available for two countries in 2000 do not show a precise trend.

Public Sports Finance In federal and community states (Germany, Switzerland, the UK and Scandinavian states), the central government budget for sports is rather limited, in absolute terms and compared to other sources of sports financing. A more centralised administration of sports in France, Italy, Portugal and Hungary (and to a lesser extent the Czech Republic) results in a more significant share of the state budget in the overall sports finance. In some countries, central government financing is completed with receipts coming from betting and gambling: the French (extra-budget state fund) Fonds National de Développement du Sport collects funds from the gamblers’ stakes in the Loto sportif and the Loto national, the Italian National Olympic Committee receives revenues from the Totocalcio football pools and other gambling and the Enalotto lottery, in Germany sports feder- ations benefit from funds collected by Lotto, Toto-Ergebniswette, Toto-Auswahlwette, Glückspirale, Spiel 77 and Rennquintett, and a National Lottery was created in 1994 in the UK with part of its income earmarked for the Sports Council finance.

Although the share of local authorities decreased in France and the UK between 1990 and 2000, the major sources of public sports finance are still the local governments of municipalities, districts (the German Länder, the Swiss cantons, the French départe- ments, the Belgian provinces and the English counties) and regions. In all surveyed coun- tries, the local government share in overall sports finance is larger than the state budget for sports. In some countries, the gambling revenues flow into sport through local bodies, as in Switzerland where 75 per cent of the Sport-Toto net profit is paid to the cantons which are obliged to use these moneys for the construction of sports facilities and the financial aid to sport for all. Generally local governments finance sports facilities more than the central government and private enterprises do, in all countries. However, subsi- dies to local sports clubs are a major expenditure in local governments’ sports budgets, and this source of revenue may be extremely important for (the survival of) some small amateur clubs. Local authorities distribute subsidies according to pre-established crite- ria such as the level of competition, the club’s performances, the number of participants (or the number of teams registered in various competitions), the age distribution of par- ticipants, and the club’s real costs and revenues. In May 2001, the European Commission limited the annual amount of the allowed local subsidy to a single professional club to €2.3 million.

The Distribution of the Funds Allocated to Sport The funds that finance the sports economy partly flow into the sports goods industry and trade. Another bigger part is used to finance the sports administration structures (federations, clubs), and through them sports practice and competitions, including

274 Handbook on the economics of sport

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

top-level sport, while some funds finance sports facilities and the organisation of sport- ing events.

No country has so far been able to carry out, on an annual basis, a comprehensive survey of all the moneys invested in the organisation of sporting events by the country’s sports administration structures and private enterprises. The European survey cited above provides an estimation of how sports finance was distributed, with the exception of sport- ing events (Table 25.3). In all sampled countries, in 1990, sports federations and sports clubs together accounted for the great bulk of funds entering sport, from 42.2 per cent of all the funds allocated in Sweden to 91.7 per cent in the UK. The distribution of funds among sports administration structures, between federations and clubs, is not very significant, since it depends on the specific accounting methodology and the degree of centralisation of sports structures in each country. With regard to the funds devoted to top-level sport, the existing data is very heterogeneous and, in most countries, covers only the public financing of top-level athletes and teams. The only data available for sports facilities on a nationwide basis relates to their public financing; no aggregated figure is available for private financing of sports facilities. In 1990, the latter attracted the highest share of public finance in Scandinavian countries, France and Germany (where the gov- ernment invested heavily in refurbishing sports facilities in eastern Länder after the German reunification).

Regional Sports Financing Sports financing is increasingly a local and regional issue in Europe since it is unevenly allocated between the different regions of a country. At a regional level, the overwhelm- ing share of finance comes from the expenditures of local households. For instance, households provide nearly 20 times more money than the central government grants to sports in English regions (Table 25.4) and over 200 times more than local government grants. The English case shows that households’ sport-related spending ranged from £198 per capita per year in the South West to £266 in the South East. Local government grants are also unevenly distributed (from almost nothing in the North East to £3.9 per capita

Sport and financing 275

Table 25.3 Distribution of sport finance, 1990 (%)

Country Federations Clubs Facilities Top level

Czech Republic 15.9 63.5 12.7 7.9 Denmark 6.7 47.8 43.2 2.3 Finland 17.6 36.1 31.4 14.9 France 22.6 31.6 44.0 1.8 Germany 4.3 40.9 53.5 1.3 Hungary 32.1 21.7 34.1 12.1 Portugal 5.8 84.5 9.1 0.6 Sweden 6.0 36.2 57.7 0.1 Switzerland 20.1 53.8 25.5 0.6 UK 85.3 6.4 8.4 n.a.

Source: Estimation based on non-comprehensive data, see Andreff et al. (1994).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

276

T ab

le 2

5. 4

S po

rt s

fi na

nc in

g by

t he

p ub

lic s

ec to

r an

d ho

us eh

ol ds

in E

ng lis

h re

gi on

s, 20

00

£ pe

r ca

pi ta

% o

f ov

er al

l s pe

nd in

g

C en

tr al

g ov

t L

oc al

g ov

t H

ou se

ho ld

Sp or

ts w

ea r

Sp or

ts g

oo ds

Su bs

cr ip

ti on

s, fe

es A

dm is

si on

f ee

s G

am bl

in g

gr an

ts gr

an ts

sp en

di ng

fo ot

w ea

r

L on

do n

13 .4

3. 9

24 2

24 .3

5. 3

25 .5

5. 7

18 .1

So ut

h E

as t

13 .1

0. 3

26 6

20 .2

7. 0

25 .9

5. 8

17 .4

E as

t 12

.9 0.

4 21

5 22

.8 5.

1 23

.3 5.

2 19

.5 So

ut h

W es

t 11

.8 1.

5 19

8 20

.7 10

.1 22

.1 4.

9 18

.9 W

es t

M id

la nd

s 13

.6 1.

7 23

0 19

.9 12

.2 21

.4 4.

8 20

.6 E

as t

M id

la nd

s 12

.8 1.

1 20

7 20

.8 6.

3 20

.6 4.

6 20

.7 Y

or ks

& H

um be

rs id

e 15

.1 1.

2 22

9 21

.1 4.

8 25

.2 5.

6 22

.4 N

or th

W es

t 12

.5 0.

1 22

6 21

.8 6.

6 24

.0 5.

3 20

.3 N

or th

E as

t 14

.3 0.

0 22

8 22

.1 4.

1 15

.1 3.

4 32

.8 E

ng la

nd 13

.2 1.

2 23

0 21

.6 6.

9 23

.5 5.

2 20

.1

S ou

rc e:

C am

br id

ge E

co no

m et

ri cs

( 20

03 ).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

in London) whereas central government grants to regions are less uneven (from £11.8 per capita in the South West to £15.1 in Yorkshire and Humberside).

It is generally the case that the purchase of sportswear and sport-related subscriptions and fees each account for about 20–25 per cent of all household sport-related spending, in English regions. Admission fees average about 5 per cent of sport-related expenditures, the North East being the only region well below average. The share of household expen- ditures for sports goods and gambling is more uneven across regions.

In France, only a few regions publish detailed data on sports financing. For example, in the Midi-Pyrénées region, roughly one-third of funds flowing into regional sports leagues comes from public grants and subsidies. Enterprises provide a smaller share in financing regional sports than in supporting nationwide sports development. Households are the major source of sports finance in the Midi-Pyrénées (59 per cent of the total). Overall sports finance is distributed by regional leagues, first for paying salaries, then for covering the cost of organising sporting events, their own management costs, the purchase of sports goods and the building and maintenance of sports facilities and, finally, trans- portation costs (Table 25.5).

Sport Submitted to a Purely Financial Rationale? It is neither abnormal nor amoral that money should circulate in sport, in quantities sufficient to develop sports participation and spectacle. Commercial companies, associa- tions and the media have found an interest in financing sporting spectacles and the com- mercial use of sporting images. Such trends prompt sports organisations (clubs, leagues and federations), which began with non-profit objectives, to transform themselves into commercial associations, and sometimes shareholding companies. Rising amounts of money and growing temptations bring in a risk of embezzlements and fund diversion, in particular in the best-endowed sports, unless the sports governance structures are strengthened. The growth of private sources of finance upsets the structures of European mass sport, notably federations and clubs. Both favour and support the development of new and, sometimes, parallel competitions. The more commercial sponsors finance these competitions, the more the federations’ governance over sport is undermined. Federations have usually reacted with an attempt to supervise the revenues derived from sporting events under their control (or ownership), in order to avoid any unmonitored leakage of

Sport and financing 277

Table 25.5 The finance of all sports leagues in the Midi-Pyrénées, 2001 (%)

Finance from: Expenditure on:

Public subsidies central 32.2 Salaries and related expenditures 21.6 & local governments Transportation 2.8

Enterprises (sponsors) 1.5 Sport events 13.9 Households: Sport facilities & goods 10.3

Admission fees 13.5 Management 13.3 Other services 45.5 Other expenditures 38.1 Other finance 7.3

Source: Maudet and Coste (2003).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

power and money to commercial decision makers. In any case, sports federations have increasingly been involved in commercial and financial schemes over the whole range of sporting activities, which are nowadays regarded primarily as an act of individual con- sumption.

Attracting new membership has become a competitive challenge among the various sports federations and clubs, and it increasingly implies a marketing approach to attract more ‘customers’. In the search for increased finance, most sports organisations have moved towards commercialisation and professional management, but often without required monitoring and regulation as far as accountability and internal audit are con- cerned. In less professional sports, the influx of money lacks transparency, and sometimes has led to financial crises (Andreff, 2000). There has been a demand for hiring professional waged managers even in small federations, paying salaries to federation chairmen in order to fight illegal payments from ‘secret funds’, and isolating commercial operations (sports shows) from mass sporting activities. The problem is that, just as sport for all is necessary to preserve the credibility of sporting values, the sporty image ‘for all’ is necessary to maintain the attractiveness of sport to those who invest in it for commercial purposes. On the other hand, the penetration of major financial interests in European sports carries some risks with it. Above all, sports shows are staged to make money, not the reverse. Another emerging risk is one of the media and sponsors taking over the financing and possibly organisational power lost by sports federations, that is, a profound change in the less business-orientated European sport (compared to North America). That the amount of financial inflows determines sport performances is not a new concern with major sport- ing events, but the involvement of increasing financial interests adds to the risks that match fixing, corruption and other distortions may escalate uncontrollably. For example, there is a statistical correlation between the frequency of wins and the size of team budgets, namely in European football (Andreff and Bourg, 2006).

Sports Finance in the Face of a Sporting Ethic A sporting ethic refers to moral values regarding sports practice as a socially useful endeavour likely to breed sportsmen and -women imbued with: a fighting spirit; a sense of fair play; a sense of healthy well-being; an anti-doping attitude; a desire for technical and aesthetic beauty in sports practice; a recognition of the equality and fellowship of human beings (when entering the arena); and a strong urge to surpass oneself. Sport is even thought of as a spiritual experience and a deontology (for sport professionals). In this respect, for the last 100 years or so, the European sporting ethic has encompassed a behavioural rationale, a sporting spirit, and a lack of (or marginal) interest in financial matters. When the sport–finance relationships grow and flourish, there is a risk that the financial rationale will supersede the sporting ethic. When it becomes imperative to earn money by any means, then all means appear to be acceptable for winning competitions, such wins being the source of direct (prizes and bonuses) and indirect (publicity fees, broadcasting rights fees, and sponsorship) finance. If finance is allowed to dictate sport- ing practice, competition and events, non-ethical behaviour is likely to spread to all sports. Is that to say that finance alone is responsible for all sport perversions? Certainly not. However, the ever-more internationalised financing of sport, if unregulated, could down- grade its ethical sense and embroil it in adjusting sporting rules of the game to make them more ‘finance-friendly’. With a more globalised profit-seeking money inflow in sport, the

278 Handbook on the economics of sport

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

borderline is increasingly blurred between finance-friendly adjustments and cheating, match fixing, falsification of records and accounts, corruption, embezzlement, rigged games, illegal gambling, under-the-table transfers of dubious capital, illegal transfers of teenage athletes (Andreff, 2004), and even money laundering (see examples in Andreff, 2000).3 The most undesirable effect of non-ethical practices might well jeopardise the sports financing itself, since they might ‘kill the hen that lays the golden eggs’.

Financing Sports Business in North America The business orientation of North American sports is financial. The driving force behind the money influx into the American sports business is that both individual and team sports are basically professional sports.4 Finance is nearly always the counterpart of a market transaction between professional sports and households and enterprises. One major source of finance in most North American sports simply relies on selling their ‘products’, that is, admission fees, gate receipts and stadium revenues (30–60 per cent of the overall finance, depending on the sports league) paid by those households (or indi- viduals) who are sports fans.

The second source of finance consists in enterprises’ funds poured into sports through advertising (stadium-related revenues including corporate boxes, concessions and naming rights), sponsorship (licensing income) and media revenues (broadcasting rights fees). The top 20 advertising companies involved in sport provided $1876.3 million to American sports in 2000 (Fort, 2003) – from Anheuser-Busch, Chevrolet, Ford, Visa, IBM, Coors, Miller, Nike, Coca-Cola, AT&T, Microsoft, McDonald’s and so on. Sports that basically benefit from this money influx are major professional sports (and leagues), namely the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Motorsports, Pro Golf, Major League Baseball and Pro Tennis. Sponsorship provides finance to both individual and team sports. Sports sponsorship has recently grown into an explicit big business. In addition to sponsoring events and individual teams, many very large firms now purchase the right to have their name attached to stadiums and arenas to enhance their advertising (Philips and the Atlanta arena for $9.2 million per year, Pepsi and the Denver Center for $3.4 million, Enron and the Houston Field for $3.3 million and so on). Sponsorship rights fees commonly go to the primary tenant of a sports facility, usually the tenant team owner. Media ownership of teams also provides a source of sports finance, often with a bigger financial support for those teams owned by media. With the exception of the National Football League, corporations can own teams outright, and some corporate owners are media companies (TBS, News Corp., ABC, ESPN). Other owners of profes- sional sports teams are some of America’s wealthiest individuals (see Leeds and von Allmen, 2002, p. 71).

League expansion and relocation also attract finance in American sports. The league expansion increases the number of teams, yields franchise rights fees from new owners, inflates gate receipts of member teams, and increases the league television rights values (and further broadcasting rights). Team relocation to a more profitable place inflates the league’s finances. Expansion and relocation can be carefully managed in order to enhance the bargaining power of team owners with their host cities and, thus, inflate public subsi- dies and keep the price of franchises high. Public subsidies take the form of new stadiums and arenas provided by local authorities and, thus, financed by taxpayers or by issuing (state) bonds (ibid.). The total bill for 29 professional sport facilities that opened over the

Sport and financing 279

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

1999–2003 period would be about $8.9 billion, of which the public share would average about 64 per cent, or roughly $5.7 billion (Fort, 2003). Since the early 1970s, cities, coun- tries or states have subsidised sports team owners in this way. Subsidies are not limited to stadium construction. Some host cities subsidise streets near the stadium, water and sewer services, match-day safety and crowd control services. Moreover, the stadium and its oper- ations are often exempt from property taxes, another source of public subsidy. Stadium leases grant generous revenues and low rent to the team owners as a subsidy. Recent new stadiums and arenas, have absorbed public funds in the range of $100–400 million ($404 million for the Cincinnati Bengals, 100 per cent publicly financed, $390 million of public funds for the New York Mets out of an overall bill of $500 million and so on). The states increasingly rely on the funds gathered through lotteries to finance stadiums and arenas.

Let us now turn to the finance of college sports. In addition to outside revenues listed below, college sport receives institutional support: a university typically spends money on athletics departments. Thus, one of the raging controversies in intercollegiate athletics concerns whether athletics departments represent a profit centre or a drain on college resources. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sponsors surveys of college team finance which show revenue averages that are in the tens of millions of dollars. Division IA programmes are profitable, far more than lower division programmes (ibid.). Division IA athletics departments rely on football and, to a lesser extent, men’s basketball profits to subsidise other programmes: 75 per cent of schools make a profit in both football and men’s basketball (Sheehan, 2000a). In 1999, the average total revenue of Division IA college athletics departments was $22 million, $67 million in Division IA college football departments, $23 million in basketball departments, and $5 million in other sports. In college sports, conferences negotiate contracts with media providers. The total value of these contracts signed by college football – the Atlantic Coast conference, the Big East conference, the Big Ten/Pac-10, the Southern conference and Notre Dame – with ABC, CBS, NBC and ESPN was $373 million per year, in 1996–2000 (Zimbalist, 1999). Such an amount is slightly below the lowest revenue earned by the National Hockey League.

Sponsorship has become widespread in college sports. Every college team attracts money in selling advertising space on its uniform to companies such as Nike, Reebok, Adidas and so on. Conference championships are sponsored by enterprises for millions of dollars. Colleges are selling stadium and arena naming rights as well, up to $40 million over 23 years obtained by Fresno State College for the Save Mart Center and $20 million over 25 years secured by the University of Maryland for the Comcast Center (Fort, 2003). Firms have recently become much more interested in sponsoring the college football Bowl Championship series. Post-season money is now a mainstay at the conference level (the average bowl revenue per conference is nearly a quarter of a conference’s broadcasting rights fees). Finally, a few colleges require alumni to contribute a minimum amount (for example, $100) to the university’s general fund in order to be eligible to purchase football tickets (which is an indirect football-generated revenue).

Just as in some European amateur sports, cheating on NCAA rules (agreement on not paying athletes) has developed, since it can be worth millions of dollars and coincides with the profit-maximising strategy of nearly all universities. A challenging view (Leeds and von Allmen, 2002) is that the athletics directors and coaches, in fact, maximise budgets rather than profits, and minimise costs of production by depressing the ‘pay’ of their most

280 Handbook on the economics of sport

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

valuable resource – the athletes themselves – due to the monopsony power of the NCAA on the very specific ‘labour market’ of college athletes. Some contend that revenues in college sports appear to be largely driven by expenses (Sheehan, 2000b). In college foot- ball, a $1 increase in expenditures generates approximately $1 in additional revenue, while it increases revenues by $0.25–0.35 in other sports. If a school wants to keep throwing money at football, on average it will be no worse off, but following this strategy must be based on a desire to win rather than on profit maximisation. An additional problem is that athletics directors subsidise non-revenue men’s sports, such as tennis, golf or Olympic sports, and women’s sports (whose participants are disproportionately white and middle income) with the money earned from the revenue sports (football, men’s basketball) whose participants are disproportionately black and poor. It is not the least surprising windfall of the professionalisation of college sports.

Notes 1. See Chapter 76. 2. See Chapter 76. 3. See Chapters 85 and 86. 4. See chapter 76.

References Andreff, W. (1996), ‘Economic environment of sport: a comparison between Western Europe and Hungary’,

European Journal of Sport Management, 2 (2), 28–38. Andreff, W. (2000), ‘Financing modern sport in the face of a sporting ethic’, European Journal of Sport

Management, 7 (1), 5–30. Andreff, W. (2004), ‘The taxation of player moves from developing countries’, in R.D. Fort and J. Fizel (eds),

International Sports Economics Comparisons, Westport, CT: Greenwood. Andreff, W. and J.-F. Bourg (2006), ‘Broadcasting rights and competition in European football’, in

C. Jeanrenaud and S. Késenne (eds), Sports and the Media, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Andreff, W., J.-F. Bourg, B. Halba and J.-F. Nys (1994), ‘The economic importance of sport in Europe: financing and economic impact’, Background document of the 14th Informal Meeting of European Sports Ministers, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 28–29 April.

Andreff, W. and J.-F. Nys (2002), Économie du sport, Que sais-je? no. 2294, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Cambridge Econometrics (2003), ‘The value of the sports economy in England: a study on behalf of Sport England’, Sport England, June.

Fort, R.D. (2003), Sports Economics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leeds, M. and P. von Allmen (2002), The Economics of Sports, Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Maudet, T. and F. Coste (2003), ‘Les budgets des ligues et des comités régionaux sportifs en Midi-Pyrénées’,

Revue Juridique et Économique du Sport, no. 68, September, 61–78. MJS (2002), Sports STAT-Info, no. 02-03, Ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports, September. Sheehan, R.G. (2000a), ‘Academics, athletics and finances’, in W.S. Kern (ed.), The Economics of Sports,

Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 75–91. Sheehan, R.G. (2000b), ‘The professionalization of college sports’, in J. Losco and B.L. Fife (eds), Higher

Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millennium, Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 133–58. Zimbalist, A. (1999), Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-time College Sports, Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sport and financing 281

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/29/2024 9:09 AM via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use